ECCouncil 312-49v10 Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions
Question 1:
When analyzing digital evidence on a hard drive, investigators often look at file slack space, which may still contain fragments of deleted or previous data.
Which type of user environment is most likely to produce more slack space, offering greater potential for uncovering residual digital evidence?
A. A system using NTFS version 4 or 5
B. A system that uses dynamic memory swapping
C. A system performing disk writes via IRQ 13 and 21
D. A system configured with large cluster sizes (many allocation units per cluster)
Answer: D
Explanation:
File slack space is the leftover storage area in a cluster after a file has been written, but doesn't completely fill that cluster. Since hard drives organize data in fixed-size units called clusters (or allocation units), if a file doesn’t use up the entire cluster it occupies, the remaining space is considered slack space. This unused portion may contain remnants of previously stored data or system information, making it a critical area for forensic investigators searching for residual digital evidence.
To understand why D is the correct answer, let’s explore each option.
Option A refers to a system using NTFS (New Technology File System) version 4 or 5. While NTFS is a modern file system that includes enhanced security, journaling, and better storage efficiency, the version of NTFS itself is not directly responsible for increasing slack space. The size of slack space is a function of the cluster size and the size of the files being stored. NTFS can support varying cluster sizes, but the file system version (such as version 4 or 5) doesn’t inherently produce more slack space. Therefore, A is not the best choice.
Option B suggests a system that uses dynamic memory swapping. Memory swapping relates to the management of virtual memory and has to do with RAM and page files on disk. It is not associated with file slack space. Swapping is about moving data between RAM and disk to manage active processes, not about how files are physically stored on disk sectors or clusters. Thus, B is unrelated to slack space and can be ruled out.
Option C refers to systems performing disk writes via IRQ (Interrupt Requests) 13 and 21. These refer to old BIOS-level and DOS-based system interrupt calls used in low-level disk operations. While interesting historically, these interrupts don’t affect how much slack space is produced. IRQs are about the mechanics of how requests are communicated to hardware, not the logical structure of disk storage or allocation units. Therefore, C is not relevant to the question of slack space quantity.
Option D, however, directly addresses the core factor influencing slack space: cluster size. When cluster sizes are large, there is a higher chance that a file written to disk will not fill the entire cluster. For example, if a cluster is 64 KB in size and a file is only 10 KB, then 54 KB of slack space is left unused. Multiply this across thousands of files, and there can be a considerable amount of slack space across the drive. Systems configured with large clusters (for instance, systems optimized for fewer but larger files, or removable media formatted with larger cluster sizes) will inevitably have more slack space. This increases the probability of finding residual data during a forensic investigation.
For digital forensic analysis, large slack space can be a goldmine of residual information, as the OS typically doesn’t erase previous data when rewriting over clusters unless specifically instructed. Consequently, forensic tools can recover traces of previously deleted or overwritten files from slack space.
In summary, D is correct because large cluster sizes directly contribute to more slack space, which in turn increases the likelihood of finding residual digital evidence. This makes systems with large allocation units especially attractive environments for digital forensic investigators.
Question 2:
In a forensic investigation, ensuring proper evidence handling is essential. The process can differ depending on whether the case is civil or criminal.
How does evidence handling in a criminal investigation differ from that in a civil case?
A. The procedures are identical regardless of the case type
B. Evidence protocol matters only in law enforcement contexts
C. Criminal case evidence must be secured with stricter controls
D. Civil case evidence requires stricter protection than in criminal cases
Answer: C
Explanation:
Evidence handling is a cornerstone of digital forensics and plays a critical role in both civil and criminal investigations. However, there are important distinctions between how evidence must be handled in each context, particularly regarding the standards of admissibility, the required chain of custody, and the scrutiny of evidence by the court. The correct answer, C, highlights that criminal investigations generally require stricter controls over the collection, preservation, and documentation of evidence.
To understand why C is the best choice, let’s analyze each option in detail.
Option A states that the procedures are identical regardless of the case type. This is incorrect. While many best practices in evidence handling are consistent, criminal cases are held to higher legal standards due to the possibility of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property. For instance, improperly handled evidence in a criminal case can result in the suppression of that evidence and even the dismissal of charges. Civil cases generally have a lower burden of proof ("preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt") and are more flexible in the types of evidence admitted, including how strictly chain of custody is enforced.
Option B implies that evidence protocols are only relevant in law enforcement contexts. This is inaccurate. Although criminal investigations often involve law enforcement, civil cases may also require strict documentation of digital evidence, especially in intellectual property disputes, employment cases, or regulatory matters. Private forensic investigators working civil cases must still follow professional standards to ensure credibility and to stand up to cross-examination. Therefore, B underestimates the importance of evidence handling outside of criminal law enforcement.
Option D claims civil case evidence requires stricter protection than in criminal cases. This is misleading. While civil evidence handling should be meticulous, the legal system demands higher protection standards in criminal cases due to the severity of the consequences, including potential incarceration. Courts scrutinize criminal evidence more rigorously to ensure constitutional protections, such as the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures. Consequently, D reverses the actual burden levels and is incorrect.
Option C correctly identifies that criminal cases require stricter evidence control protocols. In criminal investigations, digital evidence must be collected using forensically sound methods, documented thoroughly, and stored securely. The chain of custody must be unbroken and clearly recorded from the moment of seizure through every stage of analysis and presentation in court. Failure to do so could lead to challenges in court, where the defense might argue that the evidence was tampered with or is inadmissible.
Furthermore, courts in criminal proceedings may apply standards like the Daubert or Frye tests to evaluate the admissibility of forensic evidence, which adds another layer of scrutiny not always present in civil cases. Additionally, law enforcement officials in criminal cases are often required to obtain warrants, follow statutory procedures, and may be subject to constitutional constraints that don't always apply in private civil disputes.
In conclusion, C is the correct answer because criminal investigations involve higher stakes and therefore demand stricter controls on how digital evidence is handled, preserved, and presented.
Question 3:
During a digital forensic investigation in a state crime lab, you want to verify that evidence has remained unchanged from the time it was received.
What is the best method to confirm the integrity of the digital evidence?
A. Generate a new MD5 hash and compare it to the original taken at intake
B. Match the MD5 hash to known files in the NIST database
C. Rely on lab certification to ensure integrity without further action
D. Sign an affidavit stating the evidence hasn’t been altered
Answer: A
Explanation:
Maintaining and verifying the integrity of digital evidence is one of the most important principles in digital forensics. Ensuring that the data has not been altered from the moment it was first collected to the time it is presented in court is essential for the evidence to be considered credible and admissible. The best and most commonly accepted method for confirming that evidence remains unchanged is through the use of cryptographic hash functions, such as MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256.
Let’s analyze why A is the correct answer and examine the other options.
Option A states that a new MD5 hash should be generated and compared to the original hash taken at intake. This is standard forensic procedure. A hash value is a unique digital fingerprint of a file's content. When a piece of digital evidence is first acquired, investigators generate a hash and record it. Later, any time the evidence is accessed or re-examined, the hash can be recalculated and compared to the original. If the values match, it confirms that the evidence has not been altered. This method is widely accepted by forensic professionals and courts because it provides a mathematically robust way to confirm data integrity.
Option B refers to matching the MD5 hash to known files in the NIST National Software Reference Library (NSRL). While this is useful for identifying known files (like operating system files or standard applications) during the analysis phase, it is not used for verifying the integrity of the evidence itself. This method helps to filter out irrelevant data, but it does not help confirm whether evidence has remained unchanged from the time it was collected. Therefore, B is not an appropriate choice in this context.
Option C suggests relying on the lab’s certification alone. While it’s important that a crime lab is accredited and follows proper protocols, lab certification cannot substitute for concrete, technical verification methods like hashing. Certification shows that the lab adheres to recognized standards, but it doesn't provide specific, file-level proof that the evidence is unaltered. Courts require verifiable, repeatable proof of integrity, which lab certification alone cannot provide. So, C is insufficient for this purpose.
Option D implies that signing an affidavit is enough to confirm the evidence hasn’t changed. Although affidavits can be part of the documentation and can support the chain of custody, they are not technical verification methods. Courts prefer objective, mathematical verification (like hashing) over subjective, human-based declarations, which are prone to error or manipulation. While affidavits may be necessary to establish who handled the evidence and when, they are not a substitute for cryptographic validation.
In summary, A is the correct answer because generating a hash and comparing it to the original is the most reliable and widely accepted method of verifying that digital evidence has remained unchanged. This process ensures data integrity, supports forensic soundness, and strengthens the admissibility of the evidence in court.
Question 4:
While reviewing IDS logs, you see multiple DNS version query alerts targeting internal IPs from external sources, followed by a DNS zone transfer attempt.
What firewall rule should be applied to help defend against these DNS-based reconnaissance attempts?
A. Block incoming UDP traffic on port 53 from external sources
B. Permit outbound UDP traffic on port 53 from the DNS server
C. Deny inbound TCP port 53 access from ISP or secondary DNS servers
D. Block all UDP traffic across the network
Answer: C
Explanation:
DNS-based reconnaissance is a common tactic used by attackers to gather information about a target's internal network structure. This often begins with a DNS version query, which is intended to identify vulnerabilities in the DNS server software, and may be followed by a DNS zone transfer attempt. Zone transfers (AXFR) are legitimate operations typically used between primary and secondary DNS servers to synchronize records, but if left unsecured, they can be exploited to obtain a complete map of the DNS namespace of a domain. In this context, the correct firewall rule to mitigate this threat is C, which involves denying inbound TCP port 53 access from unauthorized sources.
Let’s explore why C is the most appropriate, and why the other options fall short.
Option A recommends blocking incoming UDP traffic on port 53 from external sources. While DNS typically uses UDP port 53 for regular queries (e.g., resolving website names), zone transfers occur over TCP port 53, not UDP. Blocking UDP port 53 would prevent legitimate name resolution services for clients inside the network, which rely on outbound and inbound UDP DNS queries. Therefore, A would cause unnecessary disruption to normal operations without effectively blocking zone transfer attempts.
Option B suggests permitting outbound UDP traffic on port 53 from the DNS server. While this is necessary for a DNS server to perform recursive queries and resolve names, it doesn't address the risk posed by inbound TCP-based zone transfers. This rule alone neither prevents reconnaissance nor mitigates the specific threat seen in the IDS logs. As such, B is irrelevant to the problem of blocking external zone transfer attempts.
Option C, which denies inbound TCP port 53 access from external DNS servers or unauthorized sources, directly targets the method used for zone transfers. Since AXFR and other zone transfer protocols use TCP, restricting access to TCP port 53 prevents unauthorized external clients from attempting such transfers. Proper DNS configuration should allow zone transfers only between designated internal or trusted DNS servers, not from arbitrary external sources. This rule helps prevent external attackers from obtaining sensitive DNS information about internal network hosts.
Option D recommends blocking all UDP traffic across the network, which is impractical and overly restrictive. UDP is used by many essential protocols beyond DNS (such as DHCP, NTP, and some VoIP and streaming services). Blocking all UDP traffic would break numerous legitimate services and is not an efficient or viable security control.
In summary, C is the best answer because it specifically addresses the threat of DNS zone transfers by blocking unauthorized TCP connections to port 53. This limits exposure to reconnaissance techniques and helps protect internal DNS information, without disrupting normal DNS query resolution.
Question 5:
Accurate event reconstruction during a security incident depends on having consistent timestamps across all systems.
Which standard protocol is used to synchronize time across computers in a networked environment?
A. Universal Time Set
B. Network Time Protocol (NTP)
C. SyncTime Service
D. Time-Sync Protocol
Answer: B
Explanation:
In digital forensics, accurate event timelines are critical. Log files, system events, alerts, and application behavior all rely on timestamps to be useful in reconstructing what occurred during a security incident. If systems have inconsistent time settings, it becomes nearly impossible to correlate events across devices, which can compromise investigations and even legal proceedings. The most widely used and recognized protocol for maintaining synchronized time across systems is the Network Time Protocol (NTP), making B the correct choice.
Let’s evaluate each option.
Option A, Universal Time Set, is not an actual standard protocol. It may be a misleading reference to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which is a time standard—not a protocol. Systems often set their clocks based on UTC, but doing so requires a mechanism to receive and apply time updates, which is where NTP comes into play. Since Universal Time Set isn’t a valid protocol, A is incorrect.
Option B, Network Time Protocol (NTP), is a well-established and standardized protocol specifically designed for synchronizing time across distributed systems. It can maintain time accuracy to within milliseconds over the public internet, and even greater precision in local networks. NTP operates using a hierarchy of time sources, known as stratum levels, where stratum 0 devices (like atomic clocks) feed time to stratum 1 servers, which in turn update lower-stratum systems. This hierarchy ensures scalable and accurate time dissemination. NTP can also use authentication to prevent tampering with time updates, which is crucial for security.
Option C, SyncTime Service, does not refer to a standardized time synchronization protocol and appears to be fictitious or informal. While the name suggests a service that might sync time, it is not an industry-recognized protocol. This makes C unsuitable as a correct answer.
Option D, Time-Sync Protocol, is similarly generic and does not correspond to any widely accepted or officially documented protocol in use. It might be mistaken for other time-related services, but it lacks the formal structure, adoption, and specification of NTP. Therefore, D is not valid.
Accurate timestamping is especially critical in forensic analysis, where investigators depend on the order and timing of events to establish cause, track intrusions, or verify alibis. Without synchronized clocks, logs from firewalls, intrusion detection systems, servers, and endpoint machines can paint a misleading picture, potentially delaying responses or undermining evidence admissibility in court.
In conclusion, B is the correct answer because Network Time Protocol (NTP) is the standard method used globally to synchronize time across systems. Its reliability, scalability, and precision make it indispensable for both operational and forensic purposes in modern IT environments.
Question 6:
You're investigating a case involving potentially illegal email activity. Before conducting technical analysis, you must ensure the investigation is legitimate.
What should be the first step in this email-related forensic investigation?
A. Identify the source IP address of the email
B. Begin drafting the investigation report
C. Confirm whether a crime has actually occurred
D. Start collecting digital evidence
Answer: C
Explanation:
In any forensic investigation, especially one involving potentially illegal activities such as suspicious email behavior, the first and most critical step is to confirm whether a crime has actually occurred or at least whether there is reasonable suspicion of one. This foundational step ensures that the investigation proceeds with a clear legal and procedural basis, avoids unnecessary privacy violations, and maintains the integrity of any future legal proceedings. Therefore, the correct answer is C.
Let’s examine why C is correct by comparing it with the other options and exploring the rationale behind prioritizing the confirmation of criminal activity.
Option A suggests immediately identifying the source IP address of the email. While this is certainly a vital part of a technical forensic investigation, it is a technical step that should occur after it is established that an investigation is justified. Jumping straight into data collection or analysis without confirming the legitimacy of the investigation can violate legal boundaries, organizational policies, or even individual rights. If the investigation is later found to be unwarranted, the evidence gathered could be inadmissible in court, and the investigator or organization could face legal consequences for violating privacy or overstepping authority. Thus, A is premature and potentially problematic.
Option B proposes beginning to draft the investigation report before even determining whether any wrongdoing has occurred. This is procedurally incorrect. A forensic report should be based on actual findings derived from verified investigative steps. Drafting a report too early, especially before confirming that there is something to investigate, can lead to biased interpretations, inaccurate documentation, or flawed reasoning. Reports should be evidence-driven and created after legitimate analysis, not at the outset. Therefore, B is also not appropriate.
Option D recommends starting to collect digital evidence right away. While evidence preservation is essential in forensics, especially to prevent tampering or data loss, no data should be collected before confirming the legal authority and necessity to conduct the investigation. In corporate environments, this might mean securing approval from legal or compliance teams. In law enforcement contexts, it may require a warrant or other formal authorization. Premature evidence collection without a confirmed basis for the investigation can lead to evidence exclusion, internal disciplinary actions, or even lawsuits.
Option C, on the other hand, emphasizes establishing the legitimacy of the investigation. This includes determining whether the reported incident meets the threshold of a policy violation, criminal offense, or regulatory breach. In a law enforcement context, it may involve validating that probable cause exists. In a corporate setting, it might involve reviewing acceptable use policies, confirming a complaint, or consulting legal counsel. Only after this confirmation can investigators proceed with confidence, ensuring their actions are compliant with legal standards and ethical obligations.
Furthermore, this step helps define the scope and goals of the investigation. By confirming that an incident qualifies as a crime or policy violation, investigators can choose the correct forensic methods, avoid overcollection of data, and ensure privacy principles are respected.
In conclusion, C is the correct answer because it represents the foundational legal and procedural step that should precede any forensic activity. It ensures the legitimacy of the investigation, guides the appropriate next steps, and protects the integrity of both the process and the collected evidence.
Question 7:
Which two of the following are common methods used in a network penetration test? (Choose 2.)
A. Password cracking to access sensitive files
B. Social engineering techniques to manipulate users
C. Cross-site scripting (XSS) to exploit web applications
D. Scanning for open ports and vulnerabilities on a network
E. Installing spyware on user machines to gather sensitive data
Answer: A, D
Explanation:
Network penetration testing, often referred to as pen testing, is a structured and authorized attempt to assess the security of a network by simulating attacks from both internal and external threat actors. The goal is to identify vulnerabilities that malicious users could exploit and to evaluate how well existing defenses respond. Among the techniques used during a penetration test, password cracking and network scanning for vulnerabilities are fundamental practices. That makes A and D the correct answers.
Let’s look at each option in detail to justify the selections:
Option A, password cracking, is a commonly used method during penetration testing. Testers may attempt to crack weak passwords or guess default credentials to gain unauthorized access to sensitive files or network services. Techniques such as brute-force attacks, dictionary attacks, or rainbow table attacks are used in this process. The purpose isn’t malicious but to demonstrate where an organization’s authentication mechanisms may be vulnerable and need strengthening.
Option B, social engineering, involves manipulating people into divulging confidential information or performing actions that compromise security. While it is a common technique in real-world attacks, not all penetration tests include social engineering unless it is specifically in scope. Some organizations explicitly exclude it due to ethical concerns, privacy issues, or lack of employee consent. Thus, while useful in red team operations, it is not universally included in standard network penetration testing.
Option C, Cross-site scripting (XSS), is indeed a valid vulnerability type, but it is primarily associated with web application penetration testing, not general network penetration testing. Network tests focus on infrastructure, ports, protocols, and services, whereas XSS exploits are tested in the context of applications and browser interactions.
Option D is a core component of penetration testing. Scanning for open ports, identifying running services, and detecting vulnerabilities is one of the first steps in the reconnaissance phase. Tools like Nmap and Nessus are often used to gather this information, which then informs further testing steps such as exploit attempts or privilege escalation.
Option E, installing spyware, is not a legitimate or ethical method for a penetration tester. Deploying spyware is considered malicious behavior, not a sanctioned test activity. It could violate laws or policies, damage systems, or compromise user privacy. Ethical penetration testing must be authorized, controlled, and non-destructive. Therefore, this option does not belong in a responsible testing strategy.
In summary, A and D are standard and ethical techniques in network penetration testing. They help uncover weaknesses in authentication mechanisms and network configurations without crossing ethical or legal boundaries.
Question 8:
Which two of the following tools are used to conduct network scanning and vulnerability assessments? (Choose 2.)
A. Netcat
B. Nmap
C. Aircrack-ng
D. Burp Suite
E. Nessus
Answer: B, E
Explanation:
Network scanning and vulnerability assessment are two essential phases in the process of securing a network. Scanning identifies open ports, running services, and network hosts, while vulnerability assessment evaluates these elements to detect known security weaknesses. Among the tools listed, Nmap and Nessus are specifically designed for these tasks, making B and E the correct choices.
Let’s evaluate the role and purpose of each option:
Option A, Netcat, is a powerful and flexible command-line tool often referred to as the “Swiss army knife” of networking. It can read and write data across network connections using TCP or UDP. While it’s extremely useful for debugging, banner grabbing, and backdoor creation during advanced penetration tests, it is not typically used for vulnerability assessments or comprehensive network scans. It lacks the sophistication of dedicated scanning or assessment tools.
Option B, Nmap (Network Mapper), is a widely-used open-source tool for network discovery and security auditing. It can identify open ports, services, operating systems, and host availability. It is often the first tool used in a penetration test to create a map of the network and highlight potentially vulnerable entry points. Its scripting engine (NSE) also allows more advanced checks, but its primary function is scanning, not deep vulnerability analysis.
Option C, Aircrack-ng, is a suite of tools specifically focused on wireless network security, particularly for auditing WEP and WPA/WPA2-PSK encryption. It’s useful in Wi-Fi penetration testing but not for network-wide vulnerability assessment in wired environments. It does not offer the breadth of scanning or vulnerability detection capabilities provided by tools like Nmap or Nessus.
Option D, Burp Suite, is a robust tool used for web application security testing. It specializes in identifying issues like SQL injection, XSS, and session hijacking in web interfaces. Although very powerful in application-layer security assessments, it is not intended for general network scanning or host-based vulnerability assessments.
Option E, Nessus, is a professional-grade vulnerability scanner. It evaluates systems and network devices for known vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, missing patches, and other weaknesses. It provides detailed reports, risk levels, and remediation guidance. Nessus is commonly used in both internal and external security audits and is one of the most trusted tools in the industry for this purpose.
In summary, B (Nmap) and E (Nessus) are the two tools that align directly with the objectives of network scanning and vulnerability assessments, making them the correct selections for this question.
Question 9:
Which two methods are used to protect against cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks in web applications? (Choose 2.)
A. Validating and sanitizing user input to prevent malicious scripts
B. Encrypting user data before sending it over HTTP
C. Implementing a Content Security Policy (CSP) to control script sources
D. Using Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for sensitive transactions
E. Disabling JavaScript on the web application
Answer: A, C
Explanation:
Cross-site scripting (XSS) is a client-side attack where an attacker injects malicious scripts into web pages that are then executed by unsuspecting users' browsers. These scripts can hijack sessions, deface websites, or redirect users to malicious sites. The most effective way to protect against XSS attacks involves a combination of input validation/sanitization and browser-enforced content security measures, which is why A and C are the correct answers.
Let's examine each option:
Option A — Validating and sanitizing user input — is one of the primary defenses against XSS. This involves both input validation (ensuring data conforms to expected formats) and output sanitization (encoding special characters to prevent script execution). For example, transforming <script> into <script> prevents browsers from interpreting the input as executable code. This ensures that user-supplied data cannot contain or execute malicious scripts when rendered in a web page.
Option B — Encrypting user data over HTTP — protects data in transit, not against XSS. While using HTTPS is essential for securing communications and preventing Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks, it does not address the injection or execution of malicious scripts on the client side. Encryption helps with confidentiality, not code execution control. Thus, B is not relevant to mitigating XSS.
Option C — Implementing a Content Security Policy (CSP) — is another highly effective defense. A CSP is a browser feature that limits which sources of scripts are allowed to run. It can prevent the browser from executing inline scripts or scripts from untrusted domains. For instance, by using a CSP header that specifies allowed script sources (e.g., Content-Security-Policy: script-src 'self';), even if an attacker injects a malicious script, the browser will refuse to run it unless it originates from a trusted location.
Option D — Using Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) — enhances access control and identity verification, but does not prevent XSS. While MFA can limit the impact of certain attacks (e.g., stolen session cookies), it is not a direct defense against script injection. Therefore, D does not apply to XSS mitigation strategies.
Option E — Disabling JavaScript on the web application — is impractical and largely defeats the purpose of modern interactive web applications. JavaScript is essential for client-side functionality in most applications. Blanket disabling it would not only impair user experience but also be unrealistic from a development perspective. This approach is not considered a viable or scalable defense mechanism.
In summary, A and C are the correct answers because they address XSS prevention directly through secure coding practices and browser-based restrictions, which are foundational to web application security.
Question 10:
Which two of the following actions are commonly performed during the "reconnaissance" phase of an ethical hacking engagement? (Choose 2.)
A. Conducting a vulnerability scan on the target systems
B. Collecting publicly available information about the target, such as WHOIS data
C. Gaining unauthorized access to a target’s system
D. Identifying target hosts and open ports using network scanning tools
E. Cracking passwords to gain unauthorized access
Answer: B, D
Explanation:
The reconnaissance phase, also called information gathering, is the first and most crucial stage in any ethical hacking or penetration testing engagement. During this phase, the goal is to collect as much publicly available or passively acquired information about the target as possible — often without interacting directly with the target systems. This information provides the groundwork for subsequent phases like scanning, exploitation, and post-exploitation. The correct actions that occur in the reconnaissance phase are B and D.
Let's explore each option:
Option A — Conducting a vulnerability scan — is part of the scanning or enumeration phase, not reconnaissance. Vulnerability scans involve actively interacting with systems to probe for known security weaknesses using tools like Nessus, OpenVAS, or Qualys. Since these scans generate network traffic that may be detected, they fall under active reconnaissance or scanning, which comes after the initial passive information gathering.
Option B — Collecting publicly available information such as WHOIS data — is a classic example of passive reconnaissance. This can include searching domain registration information, analyzing DNS records, scraping social media, and researching organizational IP ranges or infrastructure. These methods do not directly engage with the target's systems and are generally undetectable, making them ideal for early-stage reconnaissance.
Option C — Gaining unauthorized access — is an illegal and unethical action unless explicitly permitted in a penetration testing contract. Even in a sanctioned engagement, this action falls under the exploitation phase, not reconnaissance. The reconnaissance phase is about observation, not interaction or intrusion.
Option D — Identifying hosts and scanning for open ports — falls into active reconnaissance, which is typically still considered part of the broader reconnaissance phase. Tools like Nmap or Masscan are used to find live hosts, enumerate open ports, and infer what services are running. This helps define the attack surface for further testing. Although it can be noisy (and potentially trigger alerts), it is a core part of most ethical reconnaissance workflows.
Option E — Cracking passwords — belongs in the attack or exploitation phase of penetration testing, not reconnaissance. At this point, the tester is attempting to compromise systems, which goes far beyond information gathering. Ethical hackers are expected to follow a structured approach, and password cracking is used only after vulnerabilities have been found and with explicit authorization.
In conclusion, B and D are the correct answers because they represent passive and active reconnaissance techniques that help an ethical hacker map out a target’s systems and environment before moving to more aggressive testing.
