ECCouncil EC Council Certified Incident Handler (ECIH v3) 212-89 Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (March 2026)

The Slowloris attack is a type of application-layer attack that targets the web server by establishing and maintaining many simultaneous HTTP connections to the target server. Unlike traditional network-layer DoS/DDoS attacks such as UDP flood or SYN flood, Slowloris is designed to hold as many connections to the target web server open for as long as possible. It does so by sending partial requests, which are never completed, and periodically sending subsequent HTTP headers to keep the connections open. This consumes the server's resources, leading to denial of service as legitimate users cannot establish connections. The Slowloris attack is effective even against servers with a high bandwidth because it targets the server's connection pool, not its network bandwidth.

In a disassociation attack, the attacker sends disassociation frames to a wireless access point (AP) using a spoofed MAC address of a client or to the client pretending to be the AP. This forces the target to disconnect and often reconnect, causing a disruption in the wireless connectivity. Such attacks can be used to create a denial-of-service condition for the client, making the network resource unavailable. The primary objective of this attack is not to eavesdrop but to disrupt the normal operation of the wireless connection between the client and the AP.

Incident triage is the stage in the incident response process where the incident handler, like Mike, performs an initial assessment of the reported incident to determine its validity, severity, and potential impact. This includes analyzing the incident to verify if it is a genuine threat or a false positive. The purpose of incident triage is to prioritize incidents based on their criticality and ensure that resources are allocated effectively to address the most serious threats first. This stage is crucial for efficient incident management, as it helps in filtering out false alarms and focusing on real security incidents that require immediate attention.

Explanation (incident response governance):

This scenario combines data theft + extortion involving highly sensitive IP and regulated participant data. The prudent course is to trigger formal legal/incident governance: engage law enforcement and appropriate cybercrime agencies (D), preserve evidence, and coordinate with legal counsel, regulators (if required), and cyber-insurance response processes. Law enforcement engagement can support intelligence sharing, preservation orders, and broader investigation into the infrastructure receiving the exfiltrated data.

(A) recalling the drug is not directly tied to the incident’s immediate technical or legal response; it’s a business decision that may be unnecessary and harmful without evidence of counterfeit risk. (B) immediate public announcement may be legally required in some jurisdictions, but it must be accurate and coordinated; doing it prematurely can worsen harm. (C) negotiation is risky and typically handled only through controlled legal and executive channels; it does not ensure data return and can incentivize further extortion.

Thus, (D) reflects best-practice escalation: treat it as a serious crime, preserve chain of custody, and coordinate response through legal and investigative authorities while technical teams contain and scope.

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum explains that insider data exfiltration frequently occurs through legitimate channels such as HTTPS to bypass traditional firewall rules. When encrypted traffic is not inspected, sensitive data can be transmitted without detection.

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools monitor, detect, and block unauthorized transmission of sensitive information across endpoints, networks, and cloud services. DLP solutions can inspect encrypted traffic (when integrated with SSL/TLS inspection mechanisms) and enforce policies that prevent confidential data from leaving the organization.

The absence of deep packet inspection allowed encrypted HTTPS traffic to evade detection. Implementing DLP would provide content-aware monitoring and policy-based enforcement, reducing insider exfiltration risk.

Option A (biometric authentication) controls access, not outbound data flows. Option C (secure coding) relates to software development security. Option D (USB blocking) addresses removable media exfiltration, not encrypted network traffic.

Therefore, implementing Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools is the appropriate eradication control.

For memory dump analysis, tools like Scylla and OllyDumpEx are more suited. These tools are designed to analyze and extract information from memory dumps, which can be crucial for understanding the state of a system at the time of an incident. Scylla is used for reconstructing imports in dumped binaries, while OllyDumpEx is an OllyDbg plugin used for dumping process memory. Both tools are valuable for incident handlers like Rinni who are performing memory dump analysis to uncover evidence or understand the behavior of malicious software.

While technical solutions like antivirus updates, disabling HTML in emails, and web proxy filtering play significant roles in securing email systems, the best method to prevent email incidents is often considered to be end-user training. This is because many email threats, such as phishing, rely on exploiting user behavior rather than technical vulnerabilities. By educating users on the risks associated with suspicious emails, how to recognize potentially harmful messages, and the importance of not clicking on unknown links or attachments, organizations can significantly reduce the risk of email-related incidents. End-user training empowers individuals to act as a critical line of defense against email-based threats, complementing technical safeguards.

Anti-forensics refers to techniques used to hinder the forensic analysis of a computer system. By hiding files in slack space, changing file headers, embedding suspicious files in executables, and altering metadata, BadGuy Bob is attempting to make it difficult for forensic analysts to find, analyze, and attribute the malicious activities and data on his laptop. These actions are designed to conceal evidence, manipulate digital artifacts, and obstruct investigations, making them clear examples of anti-forensic techniques. While such actions could be part of broader criminal activities, constituting a felony, and could be seen as adversarial mechanics or legal hostility in specific contexts, the most accurate classification of these techniques is anti-forensics.

The GPG18 and Forensic readiness planning (SPF) principles outline various guidelines to enhance an organization's readiness for forensic investigation and response. Principle 5, which suggests that organizations should adopt a scenario-based Forensic Readiness Planning approach that learns from experience gained within the business, emphasizes the importance of being prepared for a wide range of potential incidents by leveraging lessons learned from past experiences. This approach helps in continuously improving forensic readiness and response capabilities by adapting to the evolving threat landscape and organizational changes.