Pass the ECCouncil CEH v13 312-50v13 Questions and answers with CertsForce

The command shown is a Windows batch loop that attempts to mount a hidden administrative share (c$) on a remote machine (\10.1.2.3) using the username "Administrator" and a list of passwords from the file hackfile.txt.

for /f "tokens=1 %%a in (hackfile.txt) → Reads one password per line from the file

do net use * \10.1.2.3\c$ /user:"Administrator" %%a → Tries to authenticate to the share using the Administrator account and each password

This is a classic brute-force password attack attempting to crack the Administrator account using a wordlist.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Module 6: Malware and Password Cracking Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Tools and scripts that automate login attempts using SMB shares and administrative credentials can be used to brute force user accounts. An attacker attempts access using a list of passwords (dictionary attack).”

Incorrect Options:

A: The connection attempt is made, but the success is dependent on password cracking.

B: This command does not enumerate users.

D: No null session involved; this is a brute-force attempt, not privilege escalation.

Syslog messages are typically sent over UDP or TCP port 514 to the Syslog server. In this case, Snort (192.168.0.99) should send alerts to Kiwi Syslog (192.168.0.150) using TCP/UDP port 514.

The correct Wireshark filter to check if Snort is sending the messages to the Syslog server is:

tcp.dstport==514 && ip.dst==192.168.0.150

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 8: Sniffing

Topic: Packet Sniffing and Analysis

Quote:

“Wireshark filters like tcp.dstport and ip.dst can be used to verify outbound logs and traffic from intrusion detection systems.”

Incorrect Options:

A & B: Use incorrect IP addresses or direction

C: Uses incorrect destination IP (should be the Syslog server)

===========

Bob wants Alice to verify that the message hasn’t been tampered with. This is a use case for ensuring data integrity and authenticity. The process described matches the creation of a digital signature:

Bob computes a checksum (typically a cryptographic hash) of the message.

Then, he encrypts this checksum (hash) using his own private key.

Alice receives the message and decrypts the checksum using Bob’s public key.

If the decrypted checksum matches the hash she computes from the received message, she confirms the message’s integrity and authenticity.

This is a fundamental principle of digital signatures.

Incorrect Options:

A. Alice's private key is never used by others; it's confidential.

B. Encrypting with Alice’s public key ensures confidentiality, not authenticity.

D. Bob’s public key is used by the receiver to verify authenticity, not for encryption in this context.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 20: Cryptography

Section: “Digital Signatures”

Subsection: “Using Private Keys to Sign and Public Keys to Verify”

CEH Engage Lab: Email Signing and Verification

===========

Netcat does not support encryption natively. To securely transmit data over the network, the attacker must use a variant like Cryptcat, which adds symmetric encryption to standard netcat functionality.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing and Secure Communication

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Cryptcat is a netcat clone that supports encryption. For secure file transfers or remote shell access, cryptcat is the recommended tool.”

Incorrect Options:

A/B/C: These are invalid or non-existent netcat parameters.

In CEH v13 Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking, Business Impact Analysis (BIA) is defined as a core component of the risk management process that helps identify and evaluate critical business functions, their dependencies, and the impact of downtime.

BIA is performed to:

Identify critical services and resources.

Determine the impact of their failure.

Define Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPO).

Prioritize systems for business continuity planning.

Option Clarification:

A. EPR: Emergency Plan Response – not a formal phase in BIA or risk analysis.

C. Risk Mitigation: Involves taking actions to reduce risks, but doesn't identify business-critical services.

D. DRP: Disaster Recovery Planning focuses on restoration, not impact assessment.

Data encryption with AES-128 is likely to provide the best balance of security and performance in this scenario. This option works as follows:

AES-128 is a symmetric encryption algorithm that uses a 128-bit key to encrypt and decrypt data. AES-128 is one of the most widely used and trusted encryption algorithms, and it is considered secure against classical and quantum attacks, as long as the key is not compromised. AES-128 has a time complexity of O(n), which means that the encryption and decryption time is proportional to the size of the data. AES-128 is also fast and efficient, as it can process 16 bytes of data in each round, and it requires only 10 rounds to complete the encryption or decryption12.

RSA-4000 is an asymmetric encryption algorithm that uses a 4000-bit key pair to encrypt and decrypt data. RSA-4000 is used for key exchange, which means that it is used to securely share the AES-128 key between the sender and the receiver. RSA-4000 has a time complexity of O(n*2), which means that the key generation, encryption, and decryption time is proportional to the square of the size of the key. RSA-4000 is also slow and resource-intensive, as it involves large number arithmetic and modular exponentiation operations. RSA-4000 is considered secure against classical attacks, but it is vulnerable to quantum attacks, especially if the attacker has access to a quantum computer with sufficient resources to run Shor’s algorithm, which can factor large numbers in polynomial time34.

The attacker’s quantum algorithm has a time complexity of O((log n)*2), which means that the cracking time is proportional to the square of the logarithm of the size of the key. This implies that the attacker can crack RSA-4000 much faster than a classical computer, as the logarithm function grows much slower than the linear or quadratic function. For example, if a classical computer takes 10^12 years to crack RSA-4000, a quantum computer with the attacker’s algorithm could do it in about 10^4 years, which is still a long time, but not impossible5.

Therefore, data encryption with AES-128 is likely to provide the best balance of security and performance in this scenario, because:

AES-128 is secure and fast, and it can encrypt large amounts of data efficiently.

RSA-4000 is slow and vulnerable, but it is only used for key exchange, which involves a small amount of data and a one-time operation.

The attacker’s quantum algorithm is powerful, but it is not practical, as it requires a quantum computer with a large number of qubits and a long coherence time, which are not available yet.

The other options are not as balanced as option C for the following reasons:

A. Data encryption with 3DES using a 168-bit key: This option offers high security but slower performance due to 3DES’s inherent inefficiencies. 3DES is a symmetric encryption algorithm that uses a 168-bit key to encrypt and decrypt data. 3DES is a variant of DES, which is an older and weaker encryption algorithm that uses a 56-bit key. 3DES applies DES three times with different keys to increase the security, but this also increases the complexity and reduces the speed. 3DES has a time complexity of O(n), but it is much slower than AES, as it can process only 8 bytes of data in each round, and it requires 48 rounds to complete the encryption or decryption. 3DES is considered secure against classical and quantum attacks, but it is not recommended for new applications, as it is outdated and inefficient67.

B. Data encryption with Blowfish using a 448-bit key: This option offers high security but potential compatibility issues due to Blowfish’s less widespread use. Blowfish is a symmetric encryption algorithm that uses a variable key size, up to 448 bits, to encrypt and decrypt data. Blowfish is fast and secure, and it has a time complexity of O(n), as it can process 8 bytes of data in each round, and it requires 16 rounds to complete the encryption or decryption. Blowfish is considered secure against classical and quantum attacks, but it is not as popular or standardized as AES, and it may have compatibility issues with some applications or platforms89.

D. Data encryption with AES-256: This option provides high security with better performance than 3DES, but not as fast as other AES key sizes. AES-256 is a symmetric encryption algorithm that uses a 256-bit key to encrypt and decrypt data. AES-256 is a variant of AES, which is the most widely used and trusted encryption algorithm. AES-256 has a time complexity of O(n), and it can process 16 bytes of data in each round, but it requires 14 rounds to complete the encryption or decryption, which is more than AES-128 or AES-192. AES-256 is considered secure against classical and quantum attacks, but it is not as fast as other AES key sizes, and it may not be necessary for most applications, as AES-128 or AES-192 are already secure enough12.

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs):

ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers)

AFRINIC (African Network Information Center)

APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Center)

RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre)

LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Network Information Center)

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A covert channel is any communication path that allows data to be transferred in violation of a system’s security policy. It’s commonly used by malware or Trojans to exfiltrate data or send commands undetected.

Examples include:

Encoding data in TCP headers (unused bits)

Timing of packets (timing channel)

Use of legitimate protocols to piggyback malicious traffic

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Trojans and Covert Channels

<03>

Windows Messenger administration

Courier administration is an organization based framework notice Windows administration by Microsoft that was remembered for some prior forms of Microsoft Windows.

This resigned innovation, despite the fact that it has a comparable name, isn’t connected in any capacity to the later, Internet-based Microsoft Messenger administration for texting or to Windows Messenger and Windows Live Messenger (earlier named MSN Messenger) customer programming.

The Messenger Service was initially intended for use by framework managers to tell Windows clients about their networks.[1] It has been utilized malevolently to introduce spring up commercials to clients over the Internet (by utilizing mass-informing frameworks which sent an ideal message to a predetermined scope of IP addresses). Despite the fact that Windows XP incorporates a firewall, it isn’t empowered naturally. Along these lines, numerous clients got such messages. Because of this maltreatment, the Messenger Service has been debilitated as a matter of course in Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Wireless network assessment determines the vulnerabilities in an organization’s wireless networks. In the past, wireless networks used weak and defective data encryption mechanisms. Now, wireless network standards have evolved, but many networks still use weak and outdated security mechanisms and are open to attack. Wireless network assessments try to attack wireless authentication mechanisms and gain unauthorized access. This type of assessment tests wireless networks and identifies rogue networks that may exist within an organization’s perimeter. These assessments audit client-specified sites with a wireless network. They sniff wireless network traffic and try to crack encryption keys. Auditors test other network access if they gain access to the wireless network.

Expanding your network capabilities are often done well using wireless networks, but it also can be a source of harm to your data system . Deficiencies in its implementations or configurations can allow tip to be accessed in an unauthorized manner.This makes it imperative to closely monitor your wireless network while also conducting periodic Wireless Network assessment.

It identifies flaws and provides an unadulterated view of exactly how vulnerable your systems are to malicious and unauthorized accesses.

Identifying misconfigurations and inconsistencies in wireless implementations and rogue access points can improve your security posture and achieve compliance with regulatory frameworks.

While perimeter defenses like firewalls and IPS provide a layer of protection, internal systems (such as network elements) must also be hardened. This includes:

Enforcing strong authentication

Applying regular patches and updates

Conducting vulnerability assessments and security audits

Security should be layered (defense in depth), and reliance on perimeter defense alone is insufficient.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 3: Scanning Networks / Module 18: Incident Response

Quote:

“Internal systems must be hardened with secure configurations and tested regularly. A layered security approach is required even in protected environments.”

Incorrect Options:

B & C. Relying only on perimeter or physical security is not sufficient

D. While backup sites are part of DR, they don’t replace proactive protection

===========

https://nmap.org/book/man-output.html

-oX - Requests that XML output be directed to the given filename.

The described method is a classic example of a Side-Channel Attack, specifically a Timing Attack.

Key characteristics:

It exploits variations in response time from a system to infer sensitive information, such as the correct number of characters in a password.

In this scenario, if a correct character causes a longer processing time, the attacker can deduce the correct sequence iteratively.

According to CEH v13:

Side-channel attacks do not directly break encryption but rely on observing system behavior like timing, power consumption, or electromagnetic leaks.

These attacks are effective against poorly implemented authentication mechanisms or embedded systems like ICS/SCADA.

Incorrect Options:

B. Denial-of-service is aimed at making systems unavailable, not extracting credentials.

C. HMI-based attacks involve manipulating the human-machine interface of ICS systems.

D. Buffer overflow exploits memory handling flaws, not timing behavior.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 20: Cryptography

Section: “Cryptanalysis and Side-Channel Attacks”

Subsection: “Timing Attacks and Password Recovery”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection#Blind_SQL_injection

Blind SQL injection is used when a web application is vulnerable to an SQL injection but the results of the injection are not visible to the attacker. The page with the vulnerability may not be one that displays data but will display differently depending on the results of a logical statement injected into the legitimate SQL statement called for that page. This type of attack has traditionally been considered time-intensive because a new statement needed to be crafted for each bit recovered, and depending on its structure, the attack may consist of many unsuccessful requests. Recent advancements have allowed each request to recover multiple bits, with no unsuccessful requests, allowing for more consistent and efficient extraction.

In a professional penetration test or vulnerability assessment, the most efficient and effective way to discover vulnerabilities on a Windows-based system is to use an automated vulnerability scanning tool such as Nessus.

Nessus is a widely used vulnerability scanner developed by Tenable. It performs comprehensive scans across systems to identify:

Missing patches and updates

Misconfigurations

Weak or default credentials

Known vulnerabilities and associated CVEs

Outdated software versions

CEH v13 course material emphasizes the use of tools like Nessus, OpenVAS, and Qualys during the Vulnerability Analysis phase of ethical hacking engagements.

From CEH v13 Official Study Guide (Module 05: Vulnerability Analysis):

“Vulnerability scanning tools such as Nessus and OpenVAS are used to automatically identify known vulnerabilities in systems, including operating systems, applications, and services. These tools correlate identified issues with CVE entries and offer severity ratings based on CVSS scores.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. The Windows Update tool only updates the operating system and Microsoft applications. It is not designed to detect security flaws or vulnerabilities comprehensively.

C. MITRE.org is an excellent source of information for known vulnerabilities (CVEs), but it does not scan systems or detect vulnerabilities in a target environment.

D. Creating a disk image is useful for forensic purposes or backup, but it does not help in actively identifying vulnerabilities in a live system.

Reference – CEH v13 Study Guide:

Module 05: Vulnerability Analysis

Section: “Vulnerability Assessment Tools”

CEH iLabs Exercise: “Using Nessus to Perform Vulnerability Scanning”