Selected 212-89 ECIH Questions Answers

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum explains that insider data exfiltration frequently occurs through legitimate channels such as HTTPS to bypass traditional firewall rules. When encrypted traffic is not inspected, sensitive data can be transmitted without detection.

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools monitor, detect, and block unauthorized transmission of sensitive information across endpoints, networks, and cloud services. DLP solutions can inspect encrypted traffic (when integrated with SSL/TLS inspection mechanisms) and enforce policies that prevent confidential data from leaving the organization.

The absence of deep packet inspection allowed encrypted HTTPS traffic to evade detection. Implementing DLP would provide content-aware monitoring and policy-based enforcement, reducing insider exfiltration risk.

Option A (biometric authentication) controls access, not outbound data flows. Option C (secure coding) relates to software development security. Option D (USB blocking) addresses removable media exfiltration, not encrypted network traffic.

Therefore, implementing Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools is the appropriate eradication control.

This scenario reflects the post-incident recovery and reporting phase outlined in the ECIH curriculum. After containment and eradication, organizations must address legal, regulatory, and investigative requirements, especially when financial fraud and executive compromise are involved.

Option A is correct because forwarding detailed incident reports to a government cybercrime agency constitutes legal escalation and investigation support. ECIH stresses the importance of cooperation with law enforcement in cases involving fraud, financial loss, or cross-border criminal activity. Proper documentation supports potential prosecution, restitution efforts, and regulatory compliance.

Options B, C, and D are technical recovery actions unrelated to legal follow-up.

By engaging authorities with verified evidence, the organization fulfills its recovery obligations beyond technical remediation, aligning with ECIH best practices.

This scenario focuses on physical forensic evidence preservation, a key concept in the ECIH First Response module. Trace-level indicators such as fingerprints, residues, and physical media can provide attribution in insider investigations.

Option A is correct because Aaron’s actions prevent contamination or destruction of physical trace evidence that may later link the incident to a specific individual. ECIH stresses that digital investigations often involve physical evidence, especially in insider cases.

Options B–D focus on digital evidence, which is not the primary concern described here.

Proper preservation of physical trace evidence supports attribution, legal proceedings, and disciplinary action, aligning fully with ECIH forensic readiness principles.

In incident response protocols, incidents are categorized based on their severity, impact, and the urgency of the response required. The categorization helps in prioritizing incident response activities and allocating resources accordingly. A CAT 1 (Category 1) incident is typically considered the highest priority, involving significant threats that require immediate response. Given the scenario where a malware incident in one of the largest social network companies must be reported within 1 hour of discovery/detection, this indicates a high-priority incident due to the potential widespread impact and the need for a rapid response to contain and mitigate the malware's spread. The urgency of the reporting timeframe suggests that the incident is considered critical, aligning with the characteristics of a CAT 1 incident, which necessitates immediate action to prevent significant damage or disruption to the company's operations and services.