Last Attempt 312-50v13 Questions

An evil twin may be a fraudulent Wi-Fi access point that appears to be legitimate but is about up to pay attention to wireless communications.[1] The evil twin is that the wireless LAN equivalent of the phishing scam.

This type of attack could also be wont to steal the passwords of unsuspecting users, either by monitoring their connections or by phishing, which involves fixing a fraudulent internet site and luring people there.

The attacker snoops on Internet traffic employing a bogus wireless access point. Unwitting web users could also be invited to log into the attacker’s server, prompting them to enter sensitive information like usernames and passwords. Often, users are unaware they need been duped until well after the incident has occurred.

When users log into unsecured (non-HTTPS) bank or e-mail accounts, the attacker intercepts the transaction, since it’s sent through their equipment. The attacker is additionally ready to hook up with other networks related to the users’ credentials.

Fake access points are found out by configuring a wireless card to act as an access point (known as HostAP). they’re hard to trace since they will be shut off instantly. The counterfeit access point could also be given an equivalent SSID and BSSID as a close-by Wi-Fi network. The evil twin are often configured to pass Internet traffic through to the legitimate access point while monitoring the victim’s connection, or it can simply say the system is temporarily unavailable after obtaining a username and password.

CEH identifies brute-force cryptanalysis as a method in which an attacker systematically tests every possible key, password, or passphrase until the correct one is found. When an attacker obtains initial bytes from an encrypted container—often referred to as known plaintext—they can use this to validate attempts as the tool iterates through candidate keys. Automated brute-force tools compare decrypted results with known header patterns, file signatures, or expected byte structures to determine when the correct key is reached. This process aligns precisely with brute-force password testing described in CEH cryptography modules. Quantum solving is not part of CEH scope, digest comparison relates to collision attacks, and analyzing output length pertains to padding oracle detection. The correct classification is automated brute-force cryptanalysis.

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.

SMTP enumeration involves probing a mail server to gather information about users and configurations. Two important SMTP commands used in enumeration are:

VRFY: Verifies whether a particular email address or user ID exists on the mail server.

EXPN: Reveals the actual addresses behind a mailing list or alias.

These commands allow attackers or penetration testers to enumerate valid user accounts or group memberships, which can later be targeted for phishing, spam, or brute-force attacks.

Incorrect Options:

B. Daily outgoing message limits are not typically disclosed via SMTP.

C. RCPT TO is used to designate a message recipient, but it doesn't enumerate open ports.

D. Mail proxy addresses are not revealed directly via SMTP enumeration.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 04: Enumeration

Section: “SMTP Enumeration Techniques”

Tool Reference: smtp-user-enum, Netcat

=