Vce 312-50v13 Questions Latest

One may append the comment “–” operator along with the String for the username and whole avoid executing the password segment of the SQL query. Everything when the — operator would be considered as comment and not dead.

To launch such an attack, the value passed for name could be ’OR ‘1’=‘1’ ; —

Statement = “SELECT * FROM ‘CustomerDB’ WHERE ‘name’ = ‘ ”+ userName + “ ‘ AND ‘password’ = ‘ ” + passwd + “ ‘ ; ”

Statement = “SELECT * FROM ‘CustomerDB’ WHERE ‘name’ = ‘ ’ OR ‘1’=‘1‘;– + “ ‘ AND ‘password’ = ‘ ” + passwd + “ ‘ ; ”

All the records from the customer database would be listed.

Yet, another variation of the SQL Injection Attack can be conducted in dbms systems that allow multiple SQL injection statements. Here, we will also create use of the vulnerability in sure dbms whereby a user provided field isn’t strongly used in or isn’t checked for sort constraints.

This could take place once a numeric field is to be employed in a SQL statement; but, the programmer makes no checks to validate that the user supplied input is numeric.

Variation is an evasion technique whereby the attacker can easily evade any comparison statement. The attacker does this by placing characters such as “' or '1'='1'” in any basic injection statement such as “or 1=1” or with other accepted SQL comments.

Evasion Technique: Variation Variation is an evasion technique whereby the attacker can easily evade any comparison statement. The attacker does this by placing characters such as “' or '1'='1'” in any basic injection statement such as “or 1=1” or with other accepted SQL comments. The SQL interprets this as a comparison between two strings or characters instead of two numeric values. As the evaluation of two strings yields a true statement, similarly, the evaluation of two numeric values yields a true statement, thus rendering the evaluation of the complete query unaffected. It is also possible to write many other signatures; thus, there are infinite possibilities of variation as well. The main aim of the attacker is to have a WHERE statement that is always evaluated as “true” so that any mathematical or string comparison can be used, where the SQL can perform the same.

AES is the industry-standard symmetric encryption algorithm endorsed by CEH v13. It provides strong confidentiality and resists traffic analysis when used with proper modes (e.g., CBC, GCM).

DES is obsolete, HMAC ensures integrity not encryption, PSA is not a standard encryption algorithm.

Thus, Option B is correct.

Comprehensive Explanation from CEH v13 Courseware:

CEH v13 identifies XML Signature Wrapping (XSW) attacks, also known simply as Wrapping attacks, as a major threat against SOAP-based web services. These attacks exploit weak XML parsing and insufficient validation of signed message components. SOAP messages often include digitally signed sections, but if the server validates the signature without confirming the correct position or structure of the signed elements, attackers can duplicate, move, or wrap signed content inside a modified XML envelope. This allows an attacker to inject malicious payloads while still presenting a valid signature. CEH details how this can lead to unauthorized execution, privilege escalation, or bypassing authentication controls in SOAP APIs. Cloud snooping, cryptanalysis, and IMDS abuse do not involve message duplication or signature misplacement. The scenario precisely matches CEH’s definition of a Wrapping Attack in SOAP/XML security.

CEH’s Malware Analysis module outlines a structured approach:

Identify suspicious indicators (e.g., JavaScript, OpenAction)

Extract and analyze embedded objects

Determine behavior and exploit logic

PDFStreamDumper allows analysts to extract JavaScript code and embedded objects for detailed inspection.

Option B is correct.

Option A is useful but insufficient for deep analysis.

Option C only aids identification, not behavior understanding.