212-89 EC Council Certified Incident Handler (ECIH v3) Questions and Answers

Incident triage is the phase in the Incident Handling and Response (IH&R) process where identified security incidents are analyzed, validated, categorized, and prioritized. This step is crucial for determining the severity of incidents and deciding on the order in which they should be addressed. During triage, incident handlers assess the impact, urgency, and potential harm of an incident to prioritize their response efforts effectively. This ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, and the most critical incidents are handled first. Incident recording and assignment involve logging incidents and assigning them to handlers, containment focuses on limiting the extent of damage, and notification involves informing stakeholders about the incident.

This incident is a textbook example of whaling, a specialized form of phishing that targets senior executives or impersonates them to exploit authority and trust. According to the ECIH Email Security module, whaling attacks often focus on financial fraud, such as wire transfer requests or invoice manipulation, and are designed to bypass normal controls through urgency and executive impersonation.

Option A is correct because the attacker impersonated the CEO and targeted employees responsible for financial actions. The minor domain alteration and authoritative language are classic whaling indicators.

Option B refers to overwhelming inboxes with large volumes of mail. Option C involves automated credential testing. Option D targets mobile messaging platforms.

Jason’s response—header analysis, identity verification, firewall blocking, financial alerting, and organization-wide notification—aligns with ECIH best practices for handling executive impersonation attacks. Recognizing the attack type correctly is critical for appropriate escalation and mitigation, making Option A the correct answer.

Stored XSS vulnerabilities arise when untrusted input is rendered without proper output encoding. The ECIH Web Application module clearly states that output encoding is the primary defense against XSS.

Option A is correct because encoding ensures that user-supplied input is treated as data rather than executable script. This directly prevents malicious script execution in users’ browsers.

Options B and C provide additional protection but do not fix the root cause. Option D is unrelated to XSS prevention.

ECIH emphasizes fixing vulnerabilities at the application logic level, making output encoding the correct focus.

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum emphasizes Identity and Access Management (IAM) as a foundational control in cloud security. In cloud environments, shared credentials and lack of role-based restrictions significantly increase the risk of misuse, unauthorized access, and privilege abuse.

The scenario clearly identifies two major violations: credential reuse across departments and absence of role-specific restrictions. ECIH highlights that cloud best practices require enforcing strict user access control using the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP) and role-based access control (RBAC). Each user—including third-party contractors—must have unique credentials with clearly defined permissions aligned strictly with their job responsibilities.

Credential isolation ensures accountability and traceability, enabling effective logging, auditing, and forensic investigation. Without unique user tracking, organizations cannot accurately attribute actions, which weakens incident response and compliance efforts.

Option B (data anonymization) relates to data privacy but does not address access misuse. Option C (vulnerability scanning of mobile apps) addresses application security, not identity misuse. Option D (SSL encryption) protects data in transit but does not prevent unauthorized credential reuse or excessive access rights.

ECIH strongly recommends implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA), enforcing strong IAM policies, restricting third-party access, and continuously monitoring privileged accounts in cloud environments. Therefore, enforcement of strict user access control and credential isolation is the most appropriate preventive measure.

In the incident handling and response (IH&R) process, backing up the data on affected systems is a critical step that usually falls under the Containment phase. The Containment phase is crucial for limiting the scope and severity of an incident, ensuring that it does not spread further or affect additional systems. Backing up affected systems during containment is essential for several reasons: it preserves a snapshot of the system in its current state for forensic analysis, ensures that data is not lost if the system needs to be wiped or altered during the response process, and helps in the recovery process if data is corrupted or lost.

By performing a complete backup of the infected system during the Containment phase, Alice ensures that there is a reliable copy of all data and system states before any major actions, such as eradication or deeper forensic analysis, are taken. This step is also preparatory for the potential use of the backup in analyzing how the incident occurred and in restoring system functionality after the incident is resolved.

The root cause of this incident is unvalidated input poisoning the AI training process, resulting in malicious output. ECIH web application security principles emphasize that input validation is the primary control against injection and manipulation attacks.

Option B is correct because strict validation ensures that malicious or untrusted data cannot influence training or response generation. This addresses the vulnerability at its source.

Option A adds friction but does not stop poisoning. Option C is disruptive and not efficient. Option D limits functionality without fixing the underlying issue.

ECIH stresses fixing vulnerabilities at the root rather than applying superficial controls, making Option B correct.

This incident involves malware embedded within third-party modifications, affecting financial data and game integrity. The ECIH malware handling framework prioritizes rapid containment to prevent further exploitation before analysis or public communication.

Option B is correct because disabling all mods immediately stops the malicious mod from continuing to operate, preventing additional data theft and financial abuse. This action contains the threat across the entire user base quickly and uniformly.

Option A focuses on detection and removal but may miss distributed instances already in use. Option C is a communication step that should follow containment. Option D delays action and allows continued exploitation.

ECIH stresses that when malware is actively impacting users at scale, containment actions that reduce attack surface globally are preferred. Disabling all mods is the fastest and safest initial containment measure, making Option B correct.

According to the EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum, the first responder’s primary responsibility upon discovering a potential cybercrime is to preserve and protect the crime scene. This includes isolating affected systems, preventing further network communication, restricting physical and logical access, and ensuring no evidence is altered or destroyed.

Sophia’s actions—isolating the system, restricting access, preventing tampering, and escalating to the IR team—align precisely with crime scene protection principles. ECIH emphasizes that improper handling during the early stages of an incident can contaminate evidence and compromise forensic investigations.

Option A (chain of custody documentation) occurs once evidence is formally collected. Option B (evidence log collection) is part of forensic acquisition. Option C (advanced forensic analysis) is performed by specialized investigators later in the response lifecycle.

Therefore, Sophia is performing the role of protecting the integrity of the crime scene as a first responder.

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum defines drive-by download attacks as web-based attacks where malicious code is automatically executed when a user visits a compromised website. These attacks often exploit browser or rendering engine vulnerabilities without requiring user interaction or explicit file downloads.

In this scenario, trusted informational websites were covertly modified to include obfuscated scripts that executed upon page rendering. The exploit chains targeted unpatched vulnerabilities and injected payloads directly into memory, avoiding file creation and traditional detection mechanisms. This behavior is characteristic of drive-by download attacks leveraging exploit kits.

Option A involves email-based delivery, which is not described. Option B relates to manipulating search engine rankings but does not inherently describe memory-based exploit execution. Option D involves malicious advertisements; however, the scenario specifically references compromised websites rather than third-party ad platforms.

ECIH emphasizes patch management, browser hardening, memory analysis, and exploit mitigation technologies to defend against drive-by downloads. Therefore, the most consistent technique is a drive-by download attack exploiting vulnerabilities.

This scenario describes a Remote File Inclusion (RFI) vulnerability. RFI occurs when user-controlled input is used to load external resources into server-side execution contexts. Attackers often use numeric IP addresses and malformed parameters to evade basic filtering.

ECIH identifies RFI as a high-risk web application attack that can lead to malware execution, data leakage, and system compromise. Because the application dynamically loads external content without validation, Option D is correct.

In the context of an incident response team, the role of an internal auditor like David includes identifying, evaluating, and reporting on information security risks and vulnerabilities within the organization. His responsibility is to ensure that the organization's security controls are effective and to identify any security loopholes that could be exploited by attackers. Once identified, he reports these vulnerabilities to management so that they can take the necessary actions to mitigate the risks. This role is critical in maintaining theorganization's overall security posture and ensuring compliance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

Alert Logic is a cloud-based security tool that provides Security-as-a-Service solutions including threat management, vulnerability assessment, and improved security outcomes. It is designed specifically to secure cloud resources and services, making it an ideal choice for organizations like Sam Morison Inc. that are moving their operations to the cloud and are concerned about the security of their data. Tools like Nmap, Burp Suite, and Wireshark, while valuable in certain contexts, do not offer the same cloud-focused security capabilities as Alert Logic.

When Investigator Ian gives you a drive image to investigate, the type of analysis you are performing is static analysis. Static analysis involves examining the contents of a drive, file, or binary without executing the system or the application. It's about analyzing the data at rest. This type of analysis is crucial for forensics investigations because it allows for the examination of files, directories, and system information without altering any state or data, thereby preserving the integrity of the evidence. Static analysis is contrasted with dynamic analysis, which involves analyzing a system in operation (real-time or live) or executing the application to observe its behavior.

An Inappropriate Usage incident refers to instances where computing resources are misused or abused, often violating organizational policies or laws. While access-control attacks, reconnaissance attacks, and denial-of-service (DoS) attacks represent different types of external threats or methods of attack, an Insider Threat is an example of inappropriate usage. Insider threats come from individuals within the organization, such as employees or contractors, who misuse their access to harm the organization's interests. This can include stealing confidential information, intentionally disrupting systems, or other malicious activities that leverage their legitimate access to the organization's resources.

A Denial of Service (DoS) attack aims to make a computer resource, network, or application unavailable to its intended users, thereby preventing legitimate users from using the service. This is achieved by overwhelming the target with a flood of internet traffic or sending information that triggers a crash. In contrast, fraud and theft involve the unauthorized acquisition of data or assets, unauthorized access refers to gaining entry into systems without permission, and malicious code or insider threat attacks relate to software designed to cause harm or unauthorized actions by trusted users within the organization. The specific intent of a DoS attack is to disrupt service, making it a distinct category focused on denial of availability.

This scenario involves an active malware incident affecting content integrity, which directly impacts public trust and organizational credibility. According to the ECIH malware response lifecycle, the first priority is containment, not correction or recovery.

Option B is correct because network segregation and isolation prevent the malware from continuing to spread, communicating with command-and-control infrastructure, or further manipulating content. Containment stabilizes the environment and preserves evidence for forensic analysis.

Option C focuses on correction rather than stopping the attack and may allow malware persistence. Option D risks restoring infected components and destroying forensic artifacts. Option A is a communication decision that should follow containment and validation.

ECIH explicitly warns against performing remediation or rollback actions before containment, as doing so may worsen impact or obscure root cause analysis. Isolating compromised systems is therefore the correct immediate response.

According to the EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum, first responders are responsible for gathering preliminary information to understand the nature and scope of an incident. Conducting interviews and collecting contextual evidence are essential components of information collection.

Jack’s targeted questioning and note-taking are part of collecting incident-related information to reconstruct timelines and identify potential attack vectors. While documentation (Option A) is occurring, the primary function described is information gathering.

Identifying the scope (Option B) typically involves system and asset evaluation. Protecting the crime scene (Option D) involves preserving digital evidence and preventing contamination. Although these may occur later, the scenario emphasizes interview-based data collection.

Therefore, Jack’s primary responsibility here is collecting information about the incident.

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF or XSRF) is an attack that tricks the victim's browser into executing unauthorized actions on a website where they are currently authenticated. In this scenario, the attacker exploits the trust that a site has in the user's browser, effectively forcing the browser to perform actions without the user's knowledge or consent. For example, if the user is logged into their bank's website, an attacker could craft a malicious request to transfer funds without the user's direct interaction. CSRF attacks rely on authenticated sessions and typically target state-changing requests to compromise user or application data.

An Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) device placed inline is best suited to block attacks on a network actively. Being inline allows the IPS to analyze and take action on the traffic as it passes through the device, effectively preventing malicious traffic from reaching its target. The IPS can detect and block a wide range of attacks in real-time by using various detection methods, such as signature-based detection, anomaly detection, and policy-based detection. Unlike Host-based Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS), web proxies, or load balancers, an inline IPS is specifically designed to inspect and act on incoming and outgoing network traffic to prevent attacks before they reach network devices or applications.

Ping sweeping is a technique used in network reconnaissance to identify which IP addresses in a range are active or live. By sending ICMP echo requests ("ping") to multiple hosts and observing which ones respond, an attacker or, in this case, a red team member like Allan, can determine which systems are up and potentially vulnerable to further exploration or attack. This method is foundational for mapping the network before deploying more targeted exploits or scans.

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.

A Trojan, or Trojan horse, is a type of malware that disguises itself as a legitimate, harmless program or file to trick users into downloading and installing it. Once activated, a Trojan can perform a range of malicious activities, including giving attackers unauthorized access to the infected system. This can lead to the theft of sensitive information, such as credit card numbers and passwords, and can also allow the attacker to install additional malware, potentially leading to further damage, such as the erasure of data. Unlike viruses and worms, Trojans do not replicate themselves but rely on the deception of users to spread.

In the scenario described, Dickson is performing an active assessment. This type of vulnerability assessment involves using automated tools to actively scan and probe the network for identifying hosts, services, and vulnerabilities. Unlike passive assessments, which rely on monitoring network traffic without direct interaction with the targets, active assessments engage directly with the network infrastructure to discover vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and other security issues by sending data to systems and analyzing the responses. This approach provides a more immediate and detailed view of the security posture but can also generate detectable traffic that might be noticed by defensive systems or affect the performance of live systems.

This scenario describes a SYN flood attack, a classic protocol-level Denial-of-Service technique covered in the ECIH Network Security Incidents module. In a SYN flood, attackers send a large volume of TCP SYN packets but never complete the three-way handshake, leaving the server waiting for responses and exhausting connection resources.

Option D is correct because incomplete TCP handshakes, half-open connections, and resource exhaustion are defining characteristics of SYN flood attacks. The presence of multiple source IPs further suggests a distributed attack.

Option A involves taking over an existing session, not exhausting resources. Option B applies to UDP-based amplification attacks. Option C affects DNS resolution, not TCP handshakes.

ECIH stresses that early identification of SYN floods allows defenders to deploy SYN cookies, rate limiting, and upstream filtering. Recognizing handshake anomalies is therefore critical in protecting service availability.

Threat correlation is a method used by incident responders to analyze and associate various indicators of compromise (IoCs) and alerts to identify genuine threats. By correlating data from multiple sources and applying intelligence to distinguish between unrelated events and coordinated attack patterns, responders can significantly reduce the rate of false-positive alerts. This enables teams to prioritize their efforts on the most critical and likely threats, thereby reducing potential risks and corporate liabilities. Effective threat correlation involves the use of sophisticated security information and event management (SIEM) systems, threat intelligence platforms, and analytical techniques to identify relationships between seemingly disparate security events and alerts.

Incident triage is the stage in the incident response process where the incident handler, like Mike, performs an initial assessment of the reported incident to determine its validity, severity, and potential impact. This includes analyzing the incident to verify if it is a genuine threat or a false positive. The purpose of incident triage is to prioritize incidents based on their criticality and ensure that resources are allocated effectively to address the most serious threats first. This stage is crucial for efficient incident management, as it helps in filtering out false alarms and focusing on real security incidents that require immediate attention.

This incident highlights a failure in endpoint and mobile device preparation, a core area in the ECIH curriculum. Mobile devices often store or provide access to sensitive enterprise data, and when lost or stolen, they represent a high-risk exposure point. ECIH emphasizes that organizations must implement centralized mobile device management (MDM/EMM) controls as part of incident readiness.

Option D is correct because configuring remote wipe functionality allows an organization to immediately remove sensitive data from a lost or stolen device, even when physical access is no longer possible. Remote wipe is a critical containment capability that prevents data leakage, credential misuse, and unauthorized access to internal systems.

Option A strengthens authentication but does not help once the device is lost. Option B secures communications but does not address local data exposure. Option C improves application-level security but does not allow device-level containment.

ECIH stresses that preparation controls must support rapid containment actions. Without remote wipe capability, the response team is effectively powerless to protect data on a lost mobile device. Therefore, Option D is the correct and most effective preparation step.

This scenario reflects misuse of system resources, a category defined in ECIH network and endpoint incident classification.

Option C is correct because unauthorized software caused excessive CPU usage and system strain, violating acceptable use policies.

Options A, B, and D do not match the behavior described.

ECIH classifies such activity as a security incident because it impacts availability, performance, and risk exposure.

While technical solutions like antivirus updates, disabling HTML in emails, and web proxy filtering play significant roles in securing email systems, the best method to prevent email incidents is often considered to be end-user training. This is because many email threats, such as phishing, rely on exploiting user behavior rather than technical vulnerabilities. By educating users on the risks associated with suspicious emails, how to recognize potentially harmful messages, and the importance of not clicking on unknown links or attachments, organizations can significantly reduce the risk of email-related incidents. End-user training empowers individuals to act as a critical line of defense against email-based threats, complementing technical safeguards.

This scenario exemplifies a classic malicious insider threat, where a trusted employee with legitimate access abuses their privileges. According to the EC-Council ECIH curriculum, traditional perimeter controls and static access restrictions are often ineffective against insiders because the actions appear legitimate at a surface level. Therefore, the primary emphasis must be on behavior-based detection.

Option D is correct because behavioral analytics enables organizations to establish baselines of normal employee behavior and identify deviations such as unusual access times, excessive data downloads, atypical system usage, or abnormal data transfer patterns. ECIH highlights behavioral monitoring as a critical control for detecting insider threats early, especially when access credentials are valid and authorized.

Option A may limit productivity and does not detect malicious intent. Option B is an administrative practice with limited security value. Option C improves awareness but does not detect deliberate malicious behavior.

By implementing behavioral analytics, ClobalTech can identify subtle indicators of insider misuse, respond earlier, and reduce the impact of long-term data exfiltration, aligning with ECIH best practices for insider threat mitigation.

ECIH prioritizes containment of the most critical threat vector. The primary server actively exfiltrating data represents the highest risk.

Option B is correct because isolating the primary server immediately stops data loss and attacker control. IoT remediation can follow once core assets are secured.

Options A and D delay containment. Option C causes unnecessary disruption.

ECIH stresses that responders must address the most damaging threat first, making Option B correct.

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum classifies social engineering as a human-based attack technique that manipulates individuals into disclosing confidential information without exploiting technical vulnerabilities. In this scenario, the attackers first gathered publicly available information—also known as Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT)—by mining executive digital footprints, analyzing online publications, and reviewing external mentions. This reconnaissance phase aligns directly with OSINT-based profiling.

The adversaries then conducted scripted interviews under fabricated personas to extract additional identifiers. This behavior is characteristic of pretexting, a specific social engineering technique where attackers create a false scenario to persuade victims to provide sensitive information. ECIH explains that pretexting often involves impersonation and carefully constructed narratives to build credibility and trust.

The absence of malware infection or system-level compromise further confirms that this was not a technical exploit such as phishing with malicious macros (Option A) or pharming (Option C). Additionally, skimming (Option D) is a physical data theft technique unrelated to executive impersonation or digital profiling.

ECIH emphasizes that insider threat and financial fraud investigations frequently reveal social engineering campaigns leveraging OSINT, impersonation, and psychological manipulation rather than malware. Preventive controls include executive awareness training, strict identity verification for financial change requests, multi-factor authentication, and callback verification procedures.

Therefore, the technique that best aligns with the adversary’s method is social engineering using open-source intelligence followed by pretexting.

Email Dossier is a tool designed to perform detailed investigations on email messages to verify their authenticity and trace their origin. It can analyze email headers and provide information about the route an email has taken, the servers it passed through, and potentially malicious links or origins. For an incident handler like Stenley, tasked with verifying the validity of emails and containing malicious email threats, Email Dossier serves as a practical tool for analyzing and validating emails received by employees. By using this tool, Stenley can identify fraudulent or suspicious emails, thereby helping to protect the organization from phishing attacks, malware distribution, and other email-based threats.

A rogue-access point attack occurs when attackers or insiders install an unsecured access point within a trusted network, typically behind a firewall, to create a backdoor. This allows them to bypass network security measures and perform various malicious activities undetected. The use of any software or hardware access point to gain unauthorized access and conduct an attack characterizes a rogue-access point attack. This contrasts with password-based attacks, malware attacks, and email infections, which involve different methodologies and objectives, such as stealing credentials, distributing malicious software, or propagating through email systems, respectively.

Shally has incorporated the Defense-in-depth strategy into the incident response plan for Texas Pvt. Ltd. Defense-in-depth is a layered security approach that involves implementing multiple security measures and controls throughout an information system. This strategy is designed to provide several defensive barriers to protect against threats and attacks, ensuring that if one layer is compromised, others still provide protection. The goal is to create a multi-faceted defense that addresses potential vulnerabilities in various areas, including physical security, network security, application security, and user education.

The Delmont organization faced an espionage incident, which involves the unauthorized access and theft of proprietary or confidential information for passing it onto competitors or other external entities. Espionage is targeted at obtaining secrets or intellectual property to gain a competitive advantage or for other strategic purposes. Unlike network and resource abuses or email-based abuse, which might not specifically target sensitive information, espionage directly aims at stealing valuable data. Unauthorized access is a method that could be used in an espionage attempt but does not fully capture the motive of passing stolen information to competitors.

In the scenario where your company sells Software as a Service (SaaS) and is hosted on the cloud using it as a Platform as a Service (PaaS), your company is responsible for eradicating malware in your customer's database. This is because, as the SaaS provider, your company manages the software and is responsible for its security and maintenance, including the databases that store customer data. While the PaaS provider is responsible for the underlying infrastructure, platform, and possibly some middleware security aspects, the application layer security, including data and application management, falls to the SaaS provider. Building management would not be involved in digital security matters, and while customers are responsible for their data, the actual software maintenance and security in a SaaS model are the provider's responsibility.

The primary indicator here is suspicious outbound connections, a key detection category in ECIH network incident analysis. Unexpected communications to known high-risk domains often indicate malware, misconfiguration, or compromise.

Option C is correct because outbound traffic patterns revealed the issue. ECIH highlights that IoT devices frequently lack visibility and controls, making outbound monitoring critical.

Options A, B, and D do not reflect the described behavior.

Monitoring outbound traffic is therefore essential for early detection of compromised or misconfigured devices.

Eradication is the phase in the incident response process where the root cause of an incident is removed or eliminated, and all attack vectors are closed to prevent similar incidents in the future. This step follows the containment phase, where the immediate threat is isolated to prevent further damage, and precedes the recovery phase, where normal operations are restored. Eradication involves thoroughly removing malware, unauthorized access mechanisms, or any other elements used in the attack, and securing any vulnerabilities that were exploited. The goal is to ensure that the threat cannot re-emerge and that the systems are secure before they are returned to operational status.

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum stresses that preparation is the most critical phase of incident response. Organizations must establish clearly defined roles, communication channels, escalation procedures, and documented response workflows before an incident occurs. The scenario highlights confusion during a resilience drill—specifically unclear stakeholder responsibilities, communication breakdowns, and uncertainty in vendor coordination and log retrieval.

ECIH emphasizes that conducting realistic simulations, tabletop exercises, and red/blue team drills strengthens organizational readiness. These exercises help validate escalation paths, clarify third-party engagement protocols, and ensure that evidence collection procedures—such as retrieving diagnostic logs—are well understood by operational teams.

Option A (automated alerts) improves detection but does not solve role ambiguity. Option B (firmware patching) addresses vulnerability management but not communication gaps. Option D (manual fallback mode) supports business continuity but does not resolve the confusion in responsibilities and escalation paths identified in the drill.

ECIH guidance clearly states that effective first response depends on documented playbooks, defined stakeholder responsibilities, vendor coordination procedures, and continuous testing of incident response plans. Simulation-based training exposes procedural weaknesses and ensures each department understands its operational and communication duties.

Therefore, conducting realistic simulations and clearly documenting responsibilities for each stakeholder is the most appropriate corrective action to close the preparedness gaps identified during the exercise.

This scenario reflects a suspected cloud workload compromise. The ECIH Cloud Incident Handling module stresses that responders must balance containment, evidence preservation, and service continuity.

Option D is correct because creating snapshots preserves forensic evidence while isolating instances using network ACLs or security groups immediately halts malicious communication. This approach aligns with ECIH guidance to preserve evidence before destructive actions while still containing the threat.

Option B destroys evidence and hinders investigation. Option C alters system state and may trigger attacker countermeasures. Option A delays containment.

ECIH explicitly warns against terminating or rebooting compromised cloud assets before evidence capture. Snapshot-and-isolate is therefore the most effective immediate containment step.

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum highlights the Shared Responsibility Model in cloud environments. Cloud providers are responsible for security of the cloud (infrastructure), while customers are responsible for security in the cloud (applications, data, access control).

Confusion over responsibility leads to delayed incident response, misconfigurations, and security gaps. ECIH emphasizes clearly defining roles between cloud providers and internal teams before incidents occur, including logging, monitoring, access management, and incident handling responsibilities.

Option A improves security posture but does not resolve responsibility confusion. Option B improperly shifts all responsibility to the provider, which contradicts the shared model. Option D relates to operational configuration, not governance clarity.

Therefore, understanding shared responsibilities for incident response in cloud environments is critical to effectively managing cloud security incidents.

The Barracuda Email Security Gateway is designed to manage and filter inbound and outbound email traffic to protect organizations from email-borne threats and data leaks. As an incident handler analyzing email headers to find out suspicious emails, using a tool like the Barracuda Email Security Gateway would be appropriate. This tool can help identify and block spam, phishing, malware, and other malicious email threats, making it easier to focus on analyzing potentially harmful emails more closely.

In the static data collection process, which is part of digital forensics and incident handling, the focus is on acquiring and examining digital evidence without altering the system or the data itself. This process includes evidence examination, where the data is analyzed; system preservation, where the current state of a system or data is maintained to ensure no alteration occurs; and evidence acquisition, which involves creating an exact binary copy of the digital evidence. Password protection, however, is not a part of the static data collection process. Instead, it relates to securing access to data or systems but does not directly involve the collection or preservation of static data for forensic purposes.

Employee monitoring tools are primarily used by employers to detect and prevent malicious insider threats. These tools can track activities such as data access, data exfiltration attempts, unauthorized actions, and other behaviors that could indicate malicious intent or pose a risk to the organization's security. While such tools may also incidentally uncover issues like lost registry keys, conspiracies, or stolen credentials, their main purpose is to safeguard against insiders who might misuse their access to harm the organization, steal data, sabotage systems, or engage in espionage.

James's activities, including creating anonymous access to cloud services to carry out attacks such as password and key cracking, hosting malicious data, and conducting DDoS attacks, exemplify the abuse and nefarious use of cloud services. This threat involves exploiting cloud computing resources to conduct malicious activities, which can impact the cloud service provider as well as other users of the cloud services. This abuse ranges from using the cloud platform's resources for computationally intensive tasks like cracking passwords or encryption keys to conducting DDoS attacks that can disrupt services for legitimate users.

This scenario illustrates the cloud forensic challenge known as log evaporation, which occurs when logs are stored in volatile or short-lived environments and are lost when instances terminate. The ECIH Cloud Security module highlights this as a major obstacle in cloud investigations.

Option C is correct because the automatic termination of PaaS instances resulted in the loss of critical logs, preventing reconstruction of attacker activity.

Options A, B, and D describe different logging issues not reflected here.

ECIH stresses the importance of centralized, persistent logging to prevent log evaporation. This scenario directly reflects the consequences of failing to implement such controls, making Option C correct.

User Behavior Analytics (UBA) is a cybersecurity process or tool that utilizes machine learning, algorithms, and statistical analyses to detect potentially harmful activities within an organization's network by comparing them against established patterns of users' behavior. It is particularly effective in identifying malicious internal actors or compromised users who may be conducting activities that deviate from their normal behavior patterns, such as accessing unauthorized data or systems, excessive file downloads, or unusual login times. UBA tools can flag these activities for further investigation, often before traditional security tools detect a breach. In contrast, SOC2 compliance reports, log forwarding, and syslog configuration are important for maintaining and auditing security standards and for infrastructure monitoring, but they are not primarily focused on detecting malicious behavior based on deviations from established user behavior patterns.

If a hacker influences an employee or a disgruntled staff member to gain access to an organization's resources or sensitive information, this is classified as an insider attack. Insider attacks are perpetrated by individuals within the organization, such as employees, contractors, or business associates, who have inside information concerning the organization's security practices, data, and computer systems. The threat from insiders can be intentional, as in the case of a disgruntled employee seeking to harm the organization, or unintentional, where an employee is manipulated or coerced by external parties without realizing the implications of their actions. Phishing attacks, footprinting, and identity theft represent different types of cybersecurity threats where the attacker's method or objective differs from that of insider attacks.

This scenario involves a suspected malicious insider threat with potential external collusion, which significantly elevates legal, regulatory, and evidentiary requirements. The ECIH curriculum emphasizes that when insider activity is suspected—especially involving terminated employees and possible corporate espionage—organizations must prioritize forensic integrity, confidentiality, and lawful investigation.

Option B is correct because collaborating with external forensic experts and law enforcement ensures a neutral, legally defensible investigation. ECIH stresses that insider cases often require specialized forensic capabilities, evidence preservation, and legal authority that internal teams alone may not possess. Maintaining confidentiality protects the organization from reputational damage and legal exposure while facts are being established.

Option A ignores the insider dimension and risks repeat incidents. Option C bypasses legal safeguards and could be interpreted as obstruction or collusion. Option D is premature and exposes the organization to defamation and legal risk without substantiated evidence.

ECIH guidance is clear that complex insider incidents should be escalated appropriately with legal and forensic rigor. Therefore, Option B aligns best with recommended practice.

In a Linux environment, email servers such as Sendmail log events, including details about sent and received emails, in a specific log file. The correct directory and file for examining email logs, particularly for Sendmail and using Syslog for logging, is /Var/log/maillog. This file contains vital information for forensic and incident response purposes, including source and destination IP addresses, email addresses, timestamps, and other data relevant to the email traffic handled by the server. By analyzing this log, incident responders can gather evidence related to email-based incidents, trace the source of malicious emails, and understand the scope of an incident. It's crucial for individuals like Khai, who are tasked with examining logs, to know the correct log file locations and their contents to effectively validate and analyze email header information and other relevant data.

ECIH identifies insider threats as best mitigated through continuous behavioral and activity monitoring, not physical or invasive measures.

Option B is correct because employee monitoring tools can analyze access patterns, file movements, abnormal data transfers, and deviations from normal behavior. These tools provide early warning of malicious insider activity while remaining compliant with legal and privacy frameworks when properly implemented.

Options A, C, and D are ineffective, intrusive, or legally problematic and are explicitly discouraged by ECIH.

Behavioral monitoring allows organizations to detect insider threats proactively rather than reactively, making Option B the most effective control.

In the context of information security, the Incident Manager (IM) plays a crucial role in handling incidents from both a management and technical perspective. The Incident Manager is responsible for overseeing the entire incident response process, coordinating with relevant stakeholders, ensuring that incidents are analyzed, contained, and eradicated efficiently, and that recovery processes are initiated promptly. They are pivotal in ensuring communication flows smoothly between technical teams and upper management and that all actions taken are aligned with the organization's broader security policies and objectives. Unlike network administrators, threat researchers, or forensic investigators who may play more specialized roles within the incident response process, the Incident Manager has a broad oversight role that encompasses both technical and managerial aspects to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated response to security incidents.

Anti-forensics techniques are designed to prevent, mislead, or interfere with the incident handling process, affecting the collection, preservation, and identification phases of the forensic investigation process. These techniques include methods to erase, encrypt, or alter information, make data recovery difficult, hide data (e.g., steganography), or otherwise obstruct forensic analysis and investigation efforts. Anti-forensics can significantly challenge the efforts of incident responders and forensic investigators in establishing the facts of a security incident or crime.

This scenario involves a session fixation vulnerability, a well-known web application attack where an attacker forces or predicts a session identifier and then tricks a user into authenticating with that session. According to the ECIH web application security module, proper session management is essential to prevent such attacks.

Option B is correct because rotating or regenerating session tokens immediately after successful authentication ensures that any session identifier known to an attacker becomes invalid. This breaks the attack chain inherent in session fixation attacks. ECIH explicitly identifies session regeneration as a primary mitigation control.

Option A helps against automated abuse but does not address session reuse. Option C strengthens authentication but does not prevent session hijacking. Option D improves confidentiality but does not prevent fixation if the same session ID remains valid.

ECIH stresses that authentication and session management must be treated as distinct security controls. Even strong passwords cannot protect against flawed session handling. Therefore, regenerating session tokens post-login is the correct and most effective remediation.

Farheen's activity of using the DD tool to create a sector-by-sector mirror image of the original disk is an example of system preservation. This process is crucial in digital forensics for creating an exact copy of a storage device to ensure that the original data remains unchanged during the investigation. By making a forensic duplication, or image, of the disk, Farheen ensures that the static data on the disk is preserved in its current state for thorough analysis, without altering the original evidence. This step allows investigators to work with a precise replica of the data, protecting the integrity of the original evidence.

This scenario is a clear example of a deceptive phishing attack, which is extensively covered in the ECIH Email Security Incident module. Deceptive phishing involves impersonating a trusted internal entity—such as HR—to trick recipients into disclosing sensitive information like credentials or personal data.

Option D is correct because the email impersonates HR, uses social engineering, and directs users to a visually identical but fraudulent login page hosted on an unfamiliar domain. These characteristics are classic indicators of deceptive phishing.

Option A refers to DNS manipulation and is not evidenced here. Option B involves overwhelming email volume rather than deception. Option C refers to unsolicited bulk email without impersonation.

Elena’s actions align with ECIH best practices: preserving headers for forensic validation, capturing screenshots to document fraudulent infrastructure, and blocking malicious domains to prevent further exposure. Correctly categorizing the incident as deceptive phishing ensures appropriate eradication, awareness, and reporting measures.

When malware moves from the delivery stage to the exploitation stage in the cyber kill chain, its objective often shifts to identifying exploitable vulnerabilities within the targeted system. A port scan is a technique used to discover services that are listening on ports within a system. By scanning the system's ports, the malware can identify open ports and the services running on them, providing valuable information about potential entry points for further exploitation. This type of reconnaissance attack is aimed at gathering intelligence on the target system's network services, which can then be reported back to a command and control center for further malicious activity planning.

Port scanning is more relevant than IP range sweeps, packet sniffing, or session hijacking for identifying useful services on a system because it directly targets the discovery of accessible network services and their corresponding ports. While the other methods can also be part of the reconnaissance phase, they serve different purposes: IP range sweeps aim to identify active IP addresses, packet sniffing intercepts data packets to gather information, and session hijacking involves taking over a valid user session. In contrast, port scanning is specifically designed to enumerate services that could be exploited.

Thenetstat -abcommand is useful in Windows operating systems for displaying all connections and listening ports, along with the executable involved in creating each connection or listening port. This can be particularly valuable for an incident responder like James when attempting to determine which processes are running on a system and how they are communicating over the network. This information can help identify malicious processes, unauthorized connections, or other signs of compromise on the system. Whilenetstat -abdoes not exclusively list executable files for running processes, it ties processes to network activity, which is a critical part of collecting volatile information during a cybersecurity incident investigation.

The most effective eradication and prevention control in this scenario is the implementation of the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP) through strict access controls. According to the EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum under Insider Threat Management and Incident Prevention, organizations must ensure that users are granted only the minimum level of access required to perform their job functions. Excessive privileges significantly increase the risk of intentional or accidental misuse of critical systems and data.

In this case, employees were granted administrative access to sensitive systems without a business justification. Administrative privileges typically allow access to restricted financial data and the ability to modify audit logs. ECIH emphasizes that improper privilege management is a primary enabling factor in insider threats. If role-based access control (RBAC) aligned with PoLP had been properly enforced, these employees would not have had the capability to access restricted financial records or alter audit logs.

While User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) can detect anomalous behavior, it is primarily a detective control rather than a preventive eradication measure. Enhanced password policies strengthen authentication but do not address excessive authorization rights. Network segmentation limits lateral movement but does not directly prevent misuse of over-privileged accounts within authorized segments.

ECIH guidelines strongly recommend periodic access reviews, separation of duties, privilege auditing, and strict RBAC enforcement as part of insider threat mitigation and eradication strategies. By implementing PoLP and continuously reviewing administrative privileges, organizations can significantly reduce the attack surface and prevent privilege abuse before an insider can exploit sensitive systems.

SSRF vulnerabilities allow attackers to coerce a server into making unauthorized internal or external requests. The ECIH Web Application Security module states that controlling outbound traffic is the most effective mitigation against SSRF.

Option D is correct because restricting outbound traffic ensures that even if an SSRF flaw exists, the server cannot access internal resources or attacker-controlled endpoints. ECIH emphasizes network-level egress filtering as a primary defensive control for SSRF.

Option A reduces attack surface but does not stop exploitation. Option B addresses client-side risks, not server-side requests. Option C improves detection but does not prevent exploitation.

Thus, outbound traffic restriction is the priority mitigation measure.

The scenario described is characteristic of a Trojan. A Trojan is a type of malware that disguises itself as legitimate software but performs malicious actions once installed. Unlike viruses, which can replicate themselves, or worms, which can spread across networks on their own, Trojans rely on the guise of legitimacy to trick users into initiating their execution. In this case, the user believed they were downloading and installing genuine software, but the reality was that the application contained a Trojan. The malicious code executed upon installation provided unauthorized remote access to the user's computer, which could be used by an attacker to control the system, steal data, install additional malware, or carry out other malicious activities.

Trojans can come in many forms and can be used to achieve a wide range of malicious objectives, making them a versatile and dangerous type of cyber threat. The deceptive nature of Trojans, exploiting the trust users have in what appears to be legitimate software, is what makes them particularly effective and widespread.

Persistent mobile malware that survives antivirus scans indicates deep system compromise. The ECIH Endpoint and Mobile Incident Handling guidance states that when malware cannot be reliably removed, reimaging or OS reinstallation is the safest remediation.

Option C is correct because performing a factory reset or reinstalling the OS ensures complete removal of malicious components and restores device integrity. ECIH cautions that partial containment actions may stop symptoms but not eradicate threats.

Options A and B are temporary containment steps. Option D is ineffective against malware.

Therefore, full OS reinstallation is the correct next action.

In the context of digital evidence investigation, volatility refers to how quickly data can change or be lost when power is removed or systems are altered. Among the options provided, cache is the most volatile because it is temporary storage that is designed to speed up access to data and is frequently overwritten. Cache data resides in RAM and includes things like memory buffers, system and network information, and process execution data, which are lost upon reboot or power loss. This contrasts with disks, emails, and temp files, which are considered less volatile because they are stored on permanent or semi-permanent media and are less likely to be immediately lost or overwritten.

The GPG18 and Forensic readiness planning (SPF) principles outline various guidelines to enhance an organization's readiness for forensic investigation and response. Principle 5, which suggests that organizations should adopt a scenario-based Forensic Readiness Planning approach that learns from experience gained within the business, emphasizes the importance of being prepared for a wide range of potential incidents by leveraging lessons learned from past experiences. This approach helps in continuously improving forensic readiness and response capabilities by adapting to the evolving threat landscape and organizational changes.

Explanation (preparation phase):

This is classic preparation work aimed at improving detection and response speed. Valid incident handling begins before incidents occur: ensuring telemetry exists, logs are collected centrally, alerts are actionable, and roles are defined so handoffs and escalation happen quickly. Reviewing firewall and IDS/IPS logging, centralizing alerts, and aligning the response team on responsibilities directly supports monitoring readiness and operational coordination.

(A) backup hardening is about recovery resilience and integrity of backups; nothing in the scenario references backup configurations or restore testing. (B) law enforcement coordination is a procedural/legal readiness task, not what is described. (C) vulnerability scanning is proactive identification of weaknesses; again, the actions here are about log visibility and alerting, not scanning.

Network monitoring readiness (D) best fits because it includes: ensuring the right data sources are logging, time synchronization, centralized collection (SIEM/log platform), and defined responsibilities for triage and escalation. This aligns with playbook-style preparation models that emphasize roles and monitoring visibility before incidents occur .

In the scenario described, Stanley's effort to present evidence in a clear and comprehensible manner to the members of a jury, with the intention of clarifying facts and aiding in obtaining expert opinion, aligns with the characteristic of admissibility. The admissibility of digital evidence pertains to its acceptability in a court of law, which hinges on the evidence being collected, handled, and presented in a manner that complies with legal standards and procedures. This includes ensuring the evidence is relevant, reliable, and not overly prejudicial. By preparing to present the evidence in a way that the jury can understand and use to confirm the investigation process, Stanley is focusing on ensuring that the evidence meets the criteria for admissibility in the legal proceedings. Completeness, believability, and authenticity are also important characteristics of digital evidence, but the context provided indicates that Stanley's primary focus is on meeting the legal requirements for the evidence to be considered valid in court.

A negligent insider is an individual within an organization who, due to a lack of knowledge on security threats or in an attempt to increase workplace efficiency, inadvertently bypasses security procedures or makes errors that compromise security. This type of insider threat is not malicious in intent; rather, it stems from carelessness, oversight, or a lack of proper security training. Such insiders might click on phishing links, mishandle sensitive information, or use unsecured networks for work-related tasks, thereby exposing the organization to potential security breaches. This contrasts with compromised insiders (who are manipulated by external parties), professional insiders (who misuse their access for personal gain), and malicious insiders (who intentionally aim to harm the organization).

This scenario describes an active malware infection with confirmed command-and-control (C2) communication, which represents an immediate and severe risk to sensitive financial data. According to the EC-Council ECIH malware incident handling process, the first priority in such cases is containment, specifically stopping ongoing malicious activity and preventing further data exfiltration.

Option A is correct because disconnecting the affected servers from the network immediately severs the attacker’s control channel and halts outbound data leakage. ECIH emphasizes that when C2 traffic is observed, responders must act decisively to isolate compromised systems before pursuing deeper forensic analysis or remediation. Containment minimizes damage and reduces legal, financial, and reputational impact.

Option B may preserve system state but allows continued exfiltration until shutdown is complete and may disrupt critical banking operations. Option C is a preventive measure and does not stop an active infection. Option D is valuable for investigation but should occur after containment, not before.

ECIH guidance consistently prioritizes stopping harm over gathering evidence when critical assets are at risk. Therefore, immediate network disconnection of affected servers is the correct triage action.

The scenario described, where Oscar receives an email with a link that contains a malicious URL redirecting to evilsite.org, exemplifies a vulnerability related to unvalidated redirects and forwards. This type of vulnerability occurs when a web application accepts untrusted input that could cause the web application to redirect the request to a URL contained within untrusted input. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability by crafting a malicious URL that leads unsuspecting users to phishing sites or other malicious websites, under the guise of a legitimate domain. This is distinct from malware, which refers to malicious software; SQL injection, which involves inserting malicious SQL queries through input fields to manipulate or exploit databases; and is not a term related to cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Netcraft is a tool that provides internet security services, including the detection of phishing and spam emails. It offers a range of services that can help organizations identify fraudulent websites and phishing activities by analyzing web content and email messages for known phishing signatures and heuristics. This makes it a useful tool for incident handlers like Francis, who is tasked with detecting phishing and spam emails for client organizations. Other options listed, such as Nessus (a vulnerability scanner), BTCrack (a Bluetooth pin and link-key cracker), and Cain and Abel (a password recovery tool), do not specialize in detecting phishing or spam emails but serve different purposes in cybersecurity.

This scenario indicates identity compromise in a cloud environment, reflected by unusual API activity. The ECIH Cloud Security Incident Handling module emphasizes that in cloud platforms, identity and access management (IAM) is the primary security boundary. When API misuse is detected, the most urgent action is to invalidate potentially compromised credentials.

Option D is correct because rotating all IAM access keys immediately cuts off the attacker’s ability to continue abusing API access. Reviewing IAM policies for excessive permissions further reduces the attack surface and prevents privilege misuse. ECIH explicitly states that compromised credentials must be revoked before implementing additional detective or preventive controls.

Option A may help limit access but does not address stolen credentials that could still be abused elsewhere. Option B improves future visibility but does not mitigate the active incident. Option C is unrelated, as there is no indication of a DDoS attack.

ECIH guidance prioritizes containment through credential revocation in cloud incidents involving unauthorized API usage. Therefore, rotating IAM keys and reviewing permissions is the most critical immediate mitigation step.

This scenario involves an active cloud malware incident affecting operational systems. According to the ECIH cloud incident handling process, the priority after detection is containment and eradication using appropriate tooling. Cloud-specific security tools provide visibility into workloads, API activity, lateral movement, and malicious persistence mechanisms unique to cloud environments.

Option B is correct because deploying the cloud security tool enables identification of infected resources, malicious processes, compromised identities, and abnormal API usage. This allows responders to contain spread, remove malware, and restore integrity without unnecessary disruption.

Option A is an extreme business decision that could cause severe operational and financial damage and should only occur if safety is directly threatened. Option C is a communication step that must be based on verified impact. Option D is monitoring, not response.

ECIH emphasizes that incident response actions must be proportional, evidence-based, and targeted. Leveraging cloud-native or cloud-aware security tools is the most effective primary response in such incidents, making Option B correct.

When an attacker installs a fake AP (Access Point) within a company's network, especially behind a firewall, this constitutes the deployment of a Rogue Access Point. Rogue APs are unauthorized wireless access points installed within a network without the network administrator's knowledge or consent. They pose a significant security risk because they can be used to intercept sensitive information, bypass network security configurations, and provide a gateway for attackers to enter the network undetected. This type of attack circumvents the security measures put in place by a company, including firewalls, by creating an illicit entry point into the network that is under the control of the attacker.

Centralized logging and monitoring is a core best practice in cloud incident detection and response under ECIH. Cloud environments are distributed and dynamic, making visibility a major challenge.

Option C is correct because aggregating logs from multiple cloud platforms enables correlation, faster detection, and effective incident triage. ECIH emphasizes centralized visibility as essential for identifying cross-platform threats.

Options A and D are limited in scope. Option B does not address cloud-specific risks.

This scenario represents a failure in the Preparation phase of the Incident Handling and Response (IH&R) lifecycle as defined by the EC-Council ECIH curriculum. Preparation focuses on establishing policies, procedures, standards, and awareness programs that define how systems and data must be used and protected. In this case, employees were sharing credentials via unauthorized channels because the organization failed to provide explicit rules governing acceptable communication practices.

Option C is correct because establishing defined protocols for approved digital channels directly addresses the root cause. ECIH emphasizes that organizations must define acceptable use policies, secure communication standards, and data handling procedures before incidents occur. These controls reduce the likelihood of human error and insider misuse by setting clear expectations and enforceable boundaries.

Option A relates to physical surveillance risks, which are unrelated to credential sharing. Option B is a recovery-focused control and does not prevent misuse. Option D is a detection mechanism that cannot compensate for missing governance controls.

By defining approved channels and educating users on their proper use, organizations significantly reduce the probability of credential leakage and insider-driven incidents, fulfilling a core ECIH preparation requirement.

This scenario demonstrates a preventive containment action during an email security incident. The ECIH Email Security Incident Handling module emphasizes that once phishing is identified, responders should immediately prevent further delivery to reduce organizational exposure.

Option A is correct because Lena removes malicious emails from the mail server’s delivery queue before users receive them. This action directly reduces risk by preventing additional users from clicking malicious links or submitting credentials. ECIH identifies email purging as a critical containment technique during active phishing campaigns.

Option B is an investigative action, not containment. Option C applies after delivery and compromise. Option D addresses already compromised accounts rather than preventing exposure.

By stopping malicious emails before delivery, Lena aligns with ECIH best practices for rapid containment of email-based threats.

The EC-Council Incident Handler (ECIH) curriculum stresses the importance of maintaining evidence integrity during recovery operations. Documenting the chain of custody ensures that evidence remains admissible in legal proceedings and maintains forensic validity.

Chain of custody documentation tracks who handled the evidence, when it was accessed, how it was stored, and what actions were performed. This aligns directly with forensic compliance principles, which require proper evidence preservation, documentation, and controlled handling procedures.

While restoring systems, responders must ensure that backup media and affected systems are handled in a way that does not compromise evidence. ECIH emphasizes that recovery should not destroy or contaminate forensic artifacts that may be required for legal, regulatory, or disciplinary action.

Option B (Network segmentation) relates to containment strategies. Option C (Immutable infrastructure) refers to architectural resilience models. Option D (Enhanced authentication) concerns access control, not evidence handling.

Therefore, Logan is adhering to forensic compliance principles during recovery.

IDOR is fundamentally an authorization flaw: the application exposes object identifiers (IDs) and fails to enforce that the requesting user is allowed to access that object. The primary remediation is to implement robust authorization checks—commonly RBAC (C) plus object-level access control—so every request verifies user identity and privileges against the requested resource.

(A) WAFs can help with certain injection patterns, but default WAF rules rarely fix logical authorization flaws like IDOR. A WAF also risks false positives and doesn’t replace secure design. (B) pen testing is important for assurance, but it’s not the primary patch; it helps validate the fix later. (D) encryption protects confidentiality in transit/at rest, but it does not prevent an authenticated user from accessing another user’s records if authorization checks are missing.

Therefore (C) is the correct first-line fix: enforce authorization server-side, avoid predictable identifiers, and ensure access control is consistently applied across all endpoints (including APIs).

Rachel is applying the forensic principle of preserving volatile and screen-based digital evidence, which is a core concept in the ECIH First Response and Digital Forensics modules. When a mobile device is powered on and unlocked, the data visible on the screen—such as messages, timestamps, sender details, and session states—constitutes volatile evidence that may be lost permanently if the device locks, reboots, or powers off.

ECIH guidance instructs first responders to document the live state of a device before any interaction that could alter its condition. Photographing the screen captures evidence that may not be recoverable later due to encryption or session expiration. Maintaining power ensures the device does not enter a locked or encrypted state during transport.

Option A refers to forensic analysis, not first response. Option C would destroy evidence and violates forensic principles. Option D risks loss of volatile data.

Preserving screen-based evidence ensures integrity, admissibility, and continuity of evidence, making Option B correct.

James is working on the post-incident activities stage of the Incident Handling and Response (IH&R) process. After containing the spread of the infection and removing the malware, the focus shifts to assessing the impact of the incident on the organization and preparing a detailed report. This phase involves analyzing the extent of the damage, determining the cost of the attack, evaluating how well the incident was managed, and identifying lessons learned to improve future response efforts. The objective is to restore systems to normal operation, ensure no remnants of the threat remain, and implement measures to prevent recurrence.

Explanation (aligned to threat intelligence & detection):

A high-interaction honeypot is designed to attract and engage adversaries, providing realistic services so defenders can observe tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) with higher fidelity than a low-interaction decoy. The goal is not to “stop” attacks directly, but to detect and learn: identify scanning patterns, credential stuffing attempts, exploit chains, payload delivery methods, and post-exploitation behaviors such as enumeration and lateral movement. That intelligence is then used to improve controls—signatures, detections, segmentation, and hardening priorities.

Sandboxing (B) is typically about detonating suspicious files/URLs to observe behavior in a controlled environment; it’s not what a DMZ honeypot primarily does. ACL rules and DDoS blocking (C) are traffic filtering measures, not deception telemetry. Backup/recovery testing (D) is resilience planning, unrelated to studying attacker behavior in real-time.

In incident handling terms, honeypots support the “preparation” and “detection” posture—expanding visibility, generating early warning, and enriching threat intelligence. They can also reduce risk by luring opportunistic attackers away from production assets, but their primary value is behavioral observation and evidence collection.

In the risk assessment process, "System characterization" is the initial step where the scope of the assessment is defined. This involves identifying and documenting the boundaries of the IT systems under review, the resources (hardware, software, data, and personnel) that constitute these systems, and any relevant information about their operation and environment. This foundational step is essential for understanding what needs to be protected and forms the basis for subsequent analysis, including identifying vulnerabilities, assessing potential threats, and determining the impact of risks to the organization.

The ECIH Risk Assessment and Recovery module stresses that recovery must not reintroduce threats. When backups may be compromised, validating their integrity is critical.

Option A is correct because scanning backups with updated signatures and heuristic analysis ensures that latent malware is detected before restoration. ECIH emphasizes that restoring infected backups can trigger reinfection and negate eradication efforts.

Option D is excessive and disruptive. Option B is a containment control, not a recovery safeguard. Option C risks reintroducing compromised data.

Therefore, validating backups before restoration is the priority recovery action.

This scenario demonstrates preservation of volatile evidence, a critical first-response principle in the ECIH forensic readiness module. Volatile evidence includes data that exists only while a system is powered on, such as active sessions, running processes, open files, and on-screen information.

Option B is correct because David documents the live system state without interacting in a way that would alter evidence. Photographing the screen, recording visible activity, and documenting connections are all recommended ECIH practices when dealing with powered-on systems.

Option A is unrelated. Option C alters system state. Option D applies only to inactive devices.

ECIH stresses that mishandling active systems can destroy crucial evidence. David’s actions align precisely with first responder best practices, making Option B correct.

In the context of incident handling and response (IH&R), the preparation phase is the initial step where teams and resources are organized to effectively respond to potential security incidents. This phase involves building the IH&R team, developing incident response plans and policies, setting up communication channels, and ensuring that the team has the necessary tools and authority to act. James, being assigned to build an IH&R plan and organize his team, is engaging in the preparation step of the incident response process. This foundational step is crucial for ensuring a coordinated and efficient response to incidents when they occur.

This question is based on the shared responsibility model, a fundamental concept in ECIH cloud incident handling. While customers manage applications, configurations, and data, the cloud service provider (CSP) controls the underlying infrastructure, including orchestration engines, schedulers, and runtime environments.

System-level telemetry such as hypervisor activity and orchestration logs cannot be accessed by customers. Only the CSP can provide this visibility. Therefore, Option C is correct.

The other options manage higher-level responsibilities but lack authority over infrastructure-layer components.

The Slowloris attack is a type of application-layer attack that targets the web server by establishing and maintaining many simultaneous HTTP connections to the target server. Unlike traditional network-layer DoS/DDoS attacks such as UDP flood or SYN flood, Slowloris is designed to hold as many connections to the target web server open for as long as possible. It does so by sending partial requests, which are never completed, and periodically sending subsequent HTTP headers to keep the connections open. This consumes the server's resources, leading to denial of service as legitimate users cannot establish connections. The Slowloris attack is effective even against servers with a high bandwidth because it targets the server's connection pool, not its network bandwidth.