CEH v13 312-50v13 Book

Google Hacking, also known as Google Dorking, is a passive reconnaissance technique covered in CEH v13 Reconnaissance Techniques. It involves using advanced search operators to uncover sensitive information that has been inadvertently indexed by search engines.

CEH v13 explains that Google Hacking can reveal exposed files, directories, configuration files, backups, login portals, error messages, and sensitive documents. This information often resides on the Deep Web, meaning it is not easily accessible through normal browsing but is still indexed by search engines.

Option D correctly reflects this capability. Google Hacking does not analyze source code directly (Option A), map internal networks (Option C), or primarily detect phishing sites (Option B), although it may indirectly assist with those tasks.

Because Google Hacking relies solely on publicly available data and does not interact directly with target systems, it fits perfectly within passive footprinting, making it legally and ethically appropriate when authorized.

CEH v13 emphasizes Google Hacking as a powerful method to identify unintended data exposure. Therefore, Option D is the correct justification.

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.

IoTSeeker is a specialized tool used to identify Internet of Things (IoT) devices that are accessible over a network and are still configured with their default factory credentials. These devices often ship with insecure settings, which attackers can exploit.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

IoTSeeker:

Automatically scans for common IoT devices

Uses a database of known default usernames and passwords

Flags insecure devices for further investigation or exploitation

The tool is commonly used in the reconnaissance phase for identifying low-hanging vulnerabilities in IoT environments.

Incorrect options:

B. IoT Inspector monitors network traffic for smart devices but is more focused on behavior monitoring than credential scanning.

C. AT&T IoT Platform and D. Azure IoT Central are legitimate enterprise platforms for IoT device management and are not penetration testing tools.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 18: IoT and OT Hacking

Section: “IoT Attack Surface”

Tool Reference: “IoTSeeker”

Practical Lab: CEH Engage IoT Device Discovery

=

Passive reconnaissance focuses on collecting information without directly touching or interacting with the target’s systems. CEH materials stress that any action that sends network traffic to the target—such as scanning, probing, fingerprinting, or enumeration—creates logs and increases the risk of detection. Email headers, however, are considered an excellent source of passive intelligence because they reveal internal IP structures, routing paths, mail server hostnames, internal domain formats, and technology stacks without requiring interaction with the target environment. Since these headers are already in the possession of the ethical hacker through legitimate communication records, examining them does not generate traffic or trigger monitoring systems. SSL certificates and WHOIS data provide valuable external information, but they rarely disclose internal addressing schemes. Active scanning tools, such as Nmap, would immediately violate the requirement to avoid detection. Therefore, analyzing previously received email headers is the most effective and covert method for extracting internal network details during the reconnaissance phase.