Free 312-50v13 Questions Attempt

CEH training outlines the standard methodology for attacking WPA2-PSK networks: capture the 4-way handshake and then attempt offline cracking of the pre-shared key. The most reliable way to force handshake generation is to perform a de-authentication attack using tools like Aireplay-ng. This attack momentarily disconnects a wireless client, forcing it to reauthenticate with the access point. During this reauthentication, the AP and client exchange the 4-way handshake packets necessary for offline cracking. CEH emphasizes that WPA2 encryption itself cannot be brute-forced directly; attackers must obtain the handshake and then apply dictionary or brute-force attacks offline. Attempting XSS or router spoofing does not capture the handshake and is unrelated to WPA2 key extraction. The deauth attack is also a classic wireless attack vector described extensively in CEH because it is effective, does not require interaction with the encryption algorithm, and works regardless of the strength of the AP’s passphrase. Once the handshake is captured, tools such as Hashcat are used to attempt key recovery.

Packet fragmentation is a well-documented IDS evasion technique in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking. Attackers fragment packets to evade detection by overwhelming or confusing intrusion detection systems, especially those that rely on simple pattern matching.

CEH v13 explains that anomaly-based IDS systems are particularly effective against evasion techniques like packet fragmentation because they analyze deviations from normal network behavior, rather than relying on static signatures. Fragmented packets often create unusual traffic patterns, abnormal packet sizes, or irregular reassembly behavior, which anomaly-based systems are designed to detect.

Signature-based IDS solutions struggle against fragmentation because attackers can split malicious payloads across multiple packets in ways that bypass predefined signatures. Rejecting all fragmented packets (Option C) is impractical and could disrupt legitimate network communication, as fragmentation is a normal part of TCP/IP networking.

Recognizing regular intervals (Option A) is unreliable, as attackers can randomize packet timing. CEH v13 clearly recommends anomaly-based detection to counter advanced evasion techniques.

Thus, Option B is the most effective and CEH-aligned IDS configuration.

The capabilities described match an enterprise Wireless Intrusion Prevention System (WIPS) tightly integrated with WLAN infrastructure: it uses access points as sensors (placing selected APs into passive scan/monitor mode), correlates and aggregates alarms from multiple controllers into a central engine for analysis and forensic retention, and can push automated countermeasures across the campus (such as coordinated channel scanning and remote configuration enforcement) when a device is classified as malicious. This is most consistent with Cisco Adaptive Wireless IPS.

Cisco’s adaptive WIPS model uses the existing Cisco wireless architecture (controllers and APs) to provide campus-wide monitoring and enforcement. The phrase “selected APs into a passive scan mode” is a strong indicator of adaptive sensor use—APs can be dedicated or time-sliced for scanning, and the system can coordinate coverage across channels. The centralized engine concept also aligns with enterprise WIPS deployments that collect events and alarms from multiple controllers for correlation and long-term storage, supporting incident investigation and compliance.

Why the other options are less fitting:

Fern WiFi Cracker (C) is an attack/assessment tool, not a production defensive platform, and it does not provide centralized alarm aggregation and automated enterprise countermeasures.

RFProtect (B) is a known wireless security/WIPS solution family, but the question’s feature set and wording (“adaptive,” APs used for passive scanning, controller-integrated countermeasures) most closely matches Cisco’s adaptive WIPS concept.

WatchGuard Wi-Fi Cloud WIPS (A) is a vendor-managed WIPS offering; while it can provide monitoring, the scenario stresses multi-controller aggregation into a central engine and coordinated campus countermeasures via WLAN infrastructure—again aligning best with Cisco’s controller/AP ecosystem.

Therefore, the best answer is D. Cisco Adaptive Wireless IPS.

The best answer is B. Cryptographic Failures because the scenario centers on weak protection of sensitive data in transit, enabling an attacker to intercept and manipulate the information. In CEH-aligned web and application security concepts (and consistent with modern web risk categories), cryptographic failures occur when an application does not properly use cryptography or secure transport protections to ensure confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data. If transport encryption is missing, weak, or incorrectly configured, attackers can perform man-in-the-middle style interception, tamper with traffic, steal session material, and exfiltrate regulated data—leading to outcomes like identity theft and payment card fraud, exactly as described.

The references to cookie snooping and downgrade attacks further reinforce this. Cookie snooping is commonly associated with session cookies being exposed due to insecure transport (for example, lack of HTTPS, mixed content, or cookies missing secure attributes), allowing an attacker on the network path to capture session identifiers and hijack accounts. Downgrade attacks occur when an attacker forces a connection to use weaker security settings (such as older TLS versions or insecure cipher suites) or coerces a fallback from HTTPS to HTTP when protections like HSTS are absent or misapplied. Both issues are tightly linked to improper cryptographic configuration and transport-layer security weaknesses.

Why the other options are not the best match: Broken Access Control concerns authorization—what users are allowed to access—not interception/manipulation of traffic. Identification and Authentication Failures focus on login/session identity mechanisms (passwords, MFA, session handling) but the key failure here is the weakness of cryptographic protection for data in transit. Security Misconfiguration can be a contributing cause (e.g., misconfigured TLS), but the question emphasizes the resulting weakness category—insufficient cryptographic/transport protections—making Cryptographic Failures the most precise answer.

Therefore, MediVault’s exposure to interception, manipulation, cookie snooping, and downgrade attacks most clearly indicates Cryptographic Failures.