312-50v13 ECCouncil Exam Lab Questions

A TCP/IP hijack is an attack that spoofs a server into thinking it’s talking with a sound client, once actually it’s communication with an assaulter that has condemned (or hijacked) the tcp session. Assume that the client has administrator-level privileges, which the attacker needs to steal that authority so as to form a brand new account with root-level access of the server to be used afterward. A tcp Hijacking is sort of a two-phased man-in-the-middle attack. The man-in-the-middle assaulter lurks within the circuit between a shopper and a server so as to work out what port and sequence numbers are being employed for the conversation.

First, the attacker knocks out the client with an attack, like Ping of Death, or ties it up with some reasonably ICMP storm. This renders the client unable to transmit any packets to the server. Then, with the client crashed, the attacker assumes the client’s identity so as to talk with the server. By this suggests, the attacker gains administrator-level access to the server.

One of the most effective means of preventing a hijack attack is to want a secret, that’s a shared secret between the shopper and also the server. looking on the strength of security desired, the key may be used for random exchanges. this is often once a client and server periodically challenge each other, or it will occur with each exchange, like Kerberos.

CEH methodology stresses prioritization based on risk, exploitability, and business impact. High-severity vulnerabilities—especially those related to outdated or unsupported server software—are frequently associated with known, publicly documented exploits. The proper next step after identifying such vulnerabilities is to confirm exploitability safely, typically by researching available exploit code, validating version-specific weaknesses, and determining whether the vulnerability can be successfully leveraged under the defined scope of engagement. CEH highlights that exploitation attempts must be evidence-driven, not arbitrary, and focusing on high-risk vulnerabilities allows testers to demonstrate meaningful security impacts. Brute-forcing (Option A) is unnecessary and high-noise. Ignoring or deprioritizing the high-risk finding (Options B and C) contradicts CEH risk-based assessment principles. Therefore, verifying exploitability of the high-risk vulnerability is the correct step.

In CEH v13 Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance, and Module 03: Scanning Networks, several tools and techniques are introduced for analyzing public IP addresses when investigating a security alert.

Let’s evaluate the options:

A. DNS: Domain Name System (DNS) is essential in mapping IPs to domains. Reverse DNS lookups can reveal if the IP is associated with a malicious domain, and forward lookups can confirm legitimacy.

B. Whois: WHOIS records are crucial for identifying IP ownership, registration data, and abuse contacts. It helps assess if the IP belongs to a known threat actor or suspicious hosting provider.

C. Geolocation: Helps you understand where the IP is physically located. If the IP is in a country known for cybercrime or doesn’t match your user's location, it raises red flags.

D. ARP (Address Resolution Protocol): ❌ ARP is local to Layer 2 and works only within a LAN (Local Area Network). ARP cannot resolve or analyze public IP addresses which operate in Layer 3 of the OSI model.

Thus, ARP is the least relevant when analyzing a public IP address, as it deals with MAC-to-IP mapping only in local environments.

ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) is a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) that provides information about IP address allocations and autonomous systems in North America. It’s used for WHOIS lookups and footprinting in reconnaissance.