ECCouncil Updated 312-50v13 Exam Questions and Answers by osman

CEH covers advanced cryptanalytic attacks, including Meet-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks, which are especially effective against multi-round symmetric encryption schemes. When an algorithm encrypts data twice using different keys, the naive brute-force method would require testing every possible combination of both keys—a time complexity of 2ⁿ × 2ⁿ. Meet-in-the-Middle dramatically reduces this complexity by splitting the problem in half. Attackers encrypt the plaintext using all potential values of the first key and store the results. They then decrypt the final ciphertext using all possible values of the second key. When an intermediate value matches one in storage, the corresponding key pair is identified. CEH highlights that this approach exploits the lack of key independence between two encryption layers, demonstrating how doubling encryption does not always double security. This attack is well-known for targeting 2DES, one of the historical examples covered in CEH. It is not related to side-channel attacks, brute-force flooding, or permutation reversal; it strictly relies on midpoint matching to reduce computational workload.

In CEH v13 Module 11: Hacking Wireless Networks, wireless standards and their transmission ranges are discussed.

Actual Range Specs:

802.11a: Operates at 5 GHz, range up to ~75 ft indoors, much less than 150 ft due to poor wall penetration.

802.11b/g: Operate at 2.4 GHz, typically 150–300 ft indoors.

802.16 (WiMax): Wireless MAN technology with range up to 30 miles — correct for point-to-point outdoor line of sight.

Conclusion:

802.11a listed as 150–150 ft is incorrect.

Realistic effective range is up to 75 ft indoors, depending on obstructions and interference.

This overestimation makes Option D the wrong one.

Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) may be a security protocol, laid out in the IEEE wireless local area network (Wi-Fi) standard, 802.11b, that’s designed to supply a wireless local area network (WLAN) with A level of security and privacy like what’s usually expected of a wired LAN. A wired local area network (LAN) is usually protected by physical security mechanisms (controlled access to a building, for example) that are effective for a controlled physical environment, but could also be ineffective for WLANs because radio waves aren’t necessarily bound by the walls containing the network. WEP seeks to determine similar protection thereto offered by the wired network’s physical security measures by encrypting data transmitted over the WLAN. encoding protects the vulnerable wireless link between clients and access points; once this measure has been taken, other typical LAN security mechanisms like password protection, end-to-end encryption, virtual private networks (VPNs), and authentication are often put in situ to make sure privacy.

A research group from the University of California at Berkeley recently published a report citing “major security flaws” in WEP that left WLANs using the protocol susceptible to attacks (called wireless equivalent privacy attacks). within the course of the group’s examination of the technology, they were ready to intercept and modify transmissions and gain access to restricted networks. The Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA) claims that WEP – which is included in many networking products – was never intended to be the only security mechanism for a WLAN, and that, in conjunction with traditional security practices, it’s very effective.

VLAN hopping is an advanced attack technique described in CEH materials, used to bypass VLAN segmentation by exploiting switch misconfigurations or vulnerabilities. Two primary methods—switch spoofing and double tagging—allow attackers to gain access to traffic from VLANs they are not authorized to view. This technique enables the capture of inter-VLAN traffic without requiring administrative privileges or triggering security tools. Port mirroring requires administrative control and is not an attack method. Rogue DHCP servers target IP assignment, not VLAN segmentation. ARP poisoning is effective only within a single broadcast domain and cannot traverse VLAN boundaries. Because the objective is to silently access multiple VLANs despite enforced segmentation, VLAN hopping is the correct technique as per CEH’s network perimeter attack methodology.