ECCouncil Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv13) 312-50v13 Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (January 2026)

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A Suicide Hacker is someone who launches a cyberattack without regard for the consequences, such as being caught or imprisoned. Yancey's actions fit this profile because:

He is knowingly committing illegal acts.

He is fully aware of and indifferent to the consequences.

His motive is revenge, not ideology or personal gain.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking → Types of Hackers

CEH categorizes spear phishing as a highly targeted, research-driven social engineering technique that tailors the message to the victim’s role, responsibilities, and current organizational activities. When attackers reference specific internal projects, personnel names, vendor relationships, or operational details, the message appears authentic and bypasses normal suspicion. Executives are especially vulnerable because they routinely receive sensitive operational updates and work closely with vendors and partners, making them prime targets for tailored deception. CEH stresses that spear phishing is significantly more effective than generic phishing because personalization increases trust. Social media-based attempts and mass phishing lack specificity and raise suspicion. Impersonating the CEO over the phone is riskier and more detectable due to real-time human interaction. A targeted spear-phishing email referencing internal projects best aligns with CEH-described advanced social engineering strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniffing_attack

To prevent networks from sniffing attacks, organizations and individual users should keep away from applications using insecure protocols, like basic HTTP authentication, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), and Telnet. Instead, secure protocols such as HTTPS, Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP), and Secure Shell (SSH) should be preferred. In case there is a necessity for using any insecure protocol in any application, all the data transmission should be encrypted. If required, VPN (Virtual Private Networks) can be used to provide secure access to users.

NOTE: I want to note that the wording "best option" is valid only for the EC-Council's exam since the other options will not help against sniffing or will only help from some specific attack vectors.

The sniffing attack surface is huge. To protect against it, you will need to implement a complex of measures at all levels of abstraction and apply controls at the physical, administrative, and technical levels. However, encryption is indeed the best option of all, even if your data is intercepted - an attacker cannot understand it.

The CEH Cloud Security module highlights identity and access management (IAM) failures as a major source of cloud breaches. Ensuring timely de-provisioning of user accounts when employees leave is a core security control.

Option C is correct.

Options A and B detect issues but don’t prevent access persistence.

Option D is unrelated to access control.

CEH stresses joiner–mover–leaver (JML) processes.

This scenario clearly describes the need for Time-Based Blind SQL Injection, an advanced SQL injection technique covered in the CEH v13 Web Application Hacking module. Blind SQL injection is used when an application does not return database errors or visible output, making traditional techniques ineffective.

According to CEH v13, Time-Based Blind SQL Injection is particularly useful when:

The backend database type is unknown

Error messages are suppressed

UNION queries fail

No direct data is returned in responses

In this technique, attackers inject SQL statements that deliberately introduce time delays using database-specific functions such as SLEEP(), WAITFOR DELAY, or BENCHMARK(). The ethical hacker then observes the application’s response time to determine whether the injected condition is true or false.

For example:

' OR IF(1=1, SLEEP(5), 0) --

If the application response is delayed, it confirms that the injected SQL statement was executed successfully. CEH v13 categorizes this method as behavioral-based inference, where the attacker extracts information one bit at a time by analyzing timing differences.

Other options are incorrect because:

Content-Based Blind SQL Injection relies on visible differences in responses, which the question states are unavailable.

Union-Based SQL Injection requires knowing column count and data types.

Error-Based SQL Injection depends on database error messages being displayed.

CEH v13 emphasizes Time-Based Blind SQL Injection as a last-resort yet highly effective technique when dealing with hardened applications that suppress output, making it a frequent exam-tested concept.

Zone transfers (AXFR) are DNS operations used to replicate DNS data from a primary to a secondary server. If improperly configured, attackers can request these transfers and retrieve valuable DNS information, including hostnames and IPs.

Correct Statements:

A: Zone transfers are DNS protocol operations.

C: They transfer the entire DNS zone file (records for the domain).

E: Zone transfers use TCP port 53. Blocking it can prevent unauthorized transfers.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks

Topic: DNS Enumeration → Zone Transfers

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A zone transfer is a mechanism used by DNS servers to replicate databases. It can be used by attackers to retrieve detailed DNS information if not properly restricted. Zone transfers occur over TCP port 53.”

Incorrect Statements:

B/D: nslookup is a query tool; it doesn’t perform or manage zone transfers.

F: Zone transfers can happen on the internet if DNS servers are misconfigured.

CEH defines passive reconnaissance as collecting information without directly engaging the target.

Option A is incorrect for passive reconnaissance because Nmap scanning actively probes systems, generating detectable traffic.

Options B, C, and D rely on publicly available information and are standard passive techniques.

CEH classifies Nmap scanning as active footprinting.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Social Engineering module defines tailgating as a physical social engineering attack where an unauthorized person follows an authorized individual into a restricted area.

Option C precisely matches CEH’s definition.

Option A is pretexting.

Option B is baiting.

Option D is phishing.

CEH stresses physical security awareness as critical as cyber defenses.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From CEH v13 Guide:

Grey-box testing is a hybrid method where the tester has partial knowledge of the internal workings of the system, allowing for a more focused and efficient assessment of security vulnerabilities compared to black-box (no knowledge) and white-box (full knowledge). This approach simulates an insider threat or a user with limited access rights.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 15: Hacking Web Applications – Types of Penetration Testing

“Gray-box testing assumes partial knowledge of internal structures, combining elements of both black-box and white-box testing.”

=

IoT devices that transmit data without encryption expose all communication to interception. CEH explains that attackers can position themselves between the IoT device and cloud service to manipulate or capture traffic. A MitM attack enables interception of commands, credentials, and firmware data due to the absence of TLS protections.

In order to circumvent network protection tools, cybercriminals may forge a TCP session more efficiently by submitting a bogus SYN packet, a series of ACK packets, and at least one RST (reset) or FIN (connection termination) packet. This tactic allows crooks to get around defenses that only keep tabs on incoming traffic rather than analyzing return traffic.

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, stealth scanning refers to a method of scanning that avoids detection by not completing the TCP handshake.

-sS = TCP SYN scan (Stealth scan)

Sends SYN packet.

If SYN-ACK is returned, the port is open; then a RST is sent back instead of completing handshake.

Harder to detect via IDS/IPS.

Option Analysis:

A. -sM: TCP Maimon scan (rarely used).

B. -sU: UDP scan.

C. -sS: Stealth SYN scan.

D. -sT: TCP Connect scan (not stealthy).

CEH v13 highlights that multi-vector DDoS attacks require multi-layer DDoS mitigation services, often cloud-based, capable of analyzing, filtering, and scrubbing traffic across network, transport, and application layers. These providers maintain massive bandwidth capacity, global scrubbing centers, and behavioral analysis engines that distinguish legitimate sessions from malicious floods. SYN floods and HTTP GET floods require different mitigation techniques simultaneously, which typical firewalls or WAFs cannot handle without dropping legitimate traffic. Blocking SYN packets (Option A) would disrupt normal users. A WAF (Option C) handles only Layer 7 traffic and does not mitigate network-layer volumetric attacks. Increasing bandwidth (Option D) is ineffective against large botnet attacks. Therefore, deploying a multi-layer cloud DDoS protection service is the most effective solution for resilient, real-time mitigation.

These types of attacks occur when faults or glitches are INJECTED into the Power supply that can be used for remote execution.

CEH teaches that ARP-based attacks vary in sophistication from basic poisoning to more specialized techniques such as switch port stealing. In environments where ARP poisoning defenses or inspection tools limit traditional attacks, attackers may exploit timing vulnerabilities in ARP reply behavior. Switch port stealing works by sending spoofed ARP replies at precisely the right moment—before the legitimate ARP response from the target host—causing the switch’s CAM table to update temporarily and associate the target’s IP address with the attacker’s MAC address. CEH emphasizes that switches trust the latest ARP update, so even brief timing windows enable partial packet interception. This is different from fully persistent ARP poisoning, which continuously overwrites ARP tables, and from passive sniffing, which cannot capture unicast traffic on a switched network. This attack is particularly useful when ARP spoofing is mitigated because it relies on opportunistic timing rather than full table poisoning. The intermittent nature of intercepted packets matches CEH’s description of switch port stealing behavior.

CEH v13 identifies URL parameters used in dynamic SQL queries as common injection points. When user-controlled values are passed directly into database queries without validation, attackers can manipulate query logic. Injecting a test payload such as 1 OR 1=1 into the userID parameter is a standard method to determine whether the application concatenates input into SQL statements. If the page displays all user orders instead of only the authenticated user's orders, this confirms SQL injection. CEH teaches that conditional tautologies are one of the safest and most reliable ways to probe SQL vulnerabilities, especially in GET parameters. JavaScript injection (Option A) tests XSS, not SQLi. Directory traversal (Option C) targets filesystem issues, not database logic. Brute-forcing user credentials (Option D) does not test query sanitization. Therefore, modifying the userID parameter with a SQL injection payload is the correct CEH-aligned method.

QUESTION NO: 1 [Web Application Hacking]

During a red team exercise, a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) is attempting to exploit a potential vulnerability in a target organization’s web server. The CEH has completed the information gathering and footprinting phases and has mirrored the website for offline analysis. It has also been discovered that the server is vulnerable to session hijacking. Which of the following steps is most likely to be part of a successful attack methodology while minimizing the possibility of detection?

A. Hijack an active session and immediately modify server configuration files.

B. Attempt SQL injection to extract sensitive database information.

C. Perform vulnerability scanning using automated tools to identify additional weaknesses.

D. Launch a direct brute-force attack to crack the server’s administrative password.

Answer: B

According to the Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) attack methodology, once reconnaissance, footprinting, and website mirroring have been completed, the attacker proceeds cautiously to exploitation while maintaining stealth. CEH documentation emphasizes that low-noise, application-layer attacks are preferable when the objective is to minimize detection.

Option B, attempting SQL Injection, aligns directly with CEH’s Web Application Hacking module. SQL Injection is a server-side attack that can often be executed through normal-looking HTTP requests, making it less likely to trigger intrusion detection systems (IDS) or security alerts. CEH materials highlight SQL injection as a common and effective technique for extracting sensitive data such as usernames, passwords, and business-critical information without disrupting server operations.

Option A is incorrect because immediately modifying server configuration files after session hijacking significantly increases the risk of detection. CEH guidelines stress post-exploitation restraint, especially during red team operations.

Option C is not ideal at this stage because automated vulnerability scanners generate substantial traffic and are highly detectable. CEH explicitly notes that vulnerability scanning is noisy and often logged.

Option D is the least stealthy option. Brute-force attacks generate numerous failed authentication attempts, triggering security alerts and account lockouts. CEH classifies brute-force attacks as high-risk and easily detectable.

Therefore, SQL Injection represents the most effective and stealthy next step in accordance with CEH’s structured attack lifecycle.

Most likely have an issue with DNS.

DNS stands for “Domain Name System.” It’s a system that lets you connect to websites by matching human-readable domain names (like example.com) with the server's unique ID where a website is stored.

Think of the DNS system as the internet’s phonebook. It lists domain names with their corresponding identifiers called IP addresses, instead of listing people’s names with their phone numbers. When a user enters a domain name like wpbeginner.com on their device, it looks up the IP address and connects them to the physical location where that website is stored.

NOTE: Often DNS lookup information will be cached locally inside the querying computer or remotely in the DNS infrastructure. There are typically 8 steps in a DNS lookup. When DNS information is cached, steps are skipped from the DNS lookup process, making it quicker. The example below outlines all 8 steps when nothing is cached.

The 8 steps in a DNS lookup:

1. A user types ‘example.com’ into a web browser, and the query travels into the Internet and is received by a DNS recursive resolver;

2. The resolver then queries a DNS root nameserver;

3. The root server then responds to the resolver with the address of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) DNS server (such as .com or .net), which stores the information for its domains. When searching for example.com, our request is pointed toward the .com TLD;

4. The resolver then requests the .com TLD;

5. The TLD server then responds with the IP address of the domain’s nameserver, example.com;

6. Lastly, the recursive resolver sends a query to the domain’s nameserver;

7. The IP address for example.com is then returned to the resolver from the nameserver;

8. The DNS resolver then responds to the web browser with the IP address of the domain requested initially;

Once the 8 steps of the DNS lookup have returned the IP address for example.com, the browser can request the web page:

9. The browser makes an HTTP request to the IP address;

10. The server at that IP returns the webpage to be rendered in the browser.

NOTE 2: DNS primarily uses the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) on port number 53 to serve requests. And if this port is blocked, then a problem arises already in the first step. But the ninth step is performed without problems.

This is a textbook case of Intranet DNS Poisoning, often combined with ARP spoofing, as described in CEH v13 Network Sniffing and MITM Attacks. The attacker positions themselves inside the local network, intercepts DNS requests, and responds faster than the legitimate DNS server.

ARP spoofing enables the attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack, allowing sniffing and modification of DNS traffic. CEH v13 notes that faster rogue responses are a strong indicator of local DNS poisoning.

Passive reconnaissance is emphasized throughout CEH as an essential method for gathering intelligence without alerting monitoring systems. When the tester cannot interact with the live site, they must rely entirely on third-party archives or cached content stored by search engines or internet archival services. Google’s cache function provides previously stored versions of web pages exactly for this purpose. CEH explains that attackers frequently use cached content to retrieve outdated login portals, administrative pages, exposed directories, or other sensitive elements that may no longer appear on the live web server. Unlike operators such as intext or intitle, which query live indexed metadata, the cache operator retrieves historical snapshots without accessing the target website. The link operator identifies backlinks but does not provide historical page content. Only the cache operator directly supports viewing previous versions of pages passively, aligning perfectly with the requirement to avoid detection while gathering intelligence on legacy web content.

Snort is an open-source Network Intrusion Detection and Prevention System (NIDS/NIPS) capable of real-time traffic analysis and packet logging. It functions as a sniffer and can detect various forms of attacks using signature-based rules.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 10: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots

"Snort can operate as a sniffer, logger, or full NIDS capable of real-time traffic analysis."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━