The tool described is most consistent with Bettercap. Bettercap is a lightweight, extensible framework commonly used in controlled security testing for man-in-the-middle (MITM) operations on local networks. It supports ARP spoofing/ARP poisoning to position the attacker between victims and gateways, enabling interception of traffic. It also supports DNS manipulation/spoofing (e.g., redirecting domain lookups to attacker-controlled destinations) and packet injection capabilities for modifying or inserting traffic.
Importantly, it provides an interactive interface that allows real-time session visibility and control, which matches the scenario's emphasis on interactive monitoring while intercepting internal web application traffic.
The objective described-capturing and manipulating session tokens in transit-is consistent with a MITM platform that can observe HTTP traffic (or influence traffic where TLS is not properly enforced or where testing includes trusted certificates in a lab). Bettercap's design as an "all-in-one" local network attack and monitoring tool makes it a typical choice for demonstrating risks from weak network segmentation, insecure DNS, lack of HTTPS/HSTS, or insufficient endpoint protections against ARP spoofing.
Why the other options are less suitable:
Wireshark (A) is primarily a packet analyzer/sniffer; it does not inherently perform ARP spoofing, DNS manipulation, or injection as an active MITM tool.
Hetty (B) and Caido (C) are web-focused interception/testing tools (proxy-style workflows). They can intercept HTTP/S when configured as a proxy, but they do not natively specialize in LAN-layer ARP spoofing and DNS manipulation for transparent MITM in the same way as Bettercap.
Therefore, the most likely tool is D. Bettercap.

Client-side controls, such as JavaScript validation and CAPTCHA enforcement, are explicitly described in CEH v13 as inherently untrustworthy, since they run on the user's device. The most effective way to bypass them is by intercepting and modifying HTTP requests after client-side validation but before server-side processing.
Using a proxy tool (such as Burp Suite) allows the tester to manipulate parameters invisibly, without disabling JavaScript or injecting code that could raise alarms. This makes Option B the most stealthy and effective method.
Disabling JavaScript (Option A) is noisy and easily detected. Injecting JavaScript (Option C) may trigger client-side protections. Reverse-engineering encryption (Option D) is complex and unnecessary.
CEH v13 emphasizes proxy-based manipulation as the preferred technique for bypassing client-side security mechanisms. Therefore, Option B is correct.

The correct answer is DNS Cache Poisoning. CEH network security material explains that cache poisoning occurs when a DNS server is tricked into storing fraudulent name-to-IP mappings in its cache. Once the poisoned entry is cached, many users querying that DNS service receive the same false resolution until the cache is flushed, expires, or the service is restarted. That maps directly to the scenario: multiple internal clients receive the same incorrect IP address for a legitimate domain, and the issue disappears after the organization's name resolution service is restarted. Intranet DNS spoofing typically involves local interception and very fast forged replies on a LAN, while proxy server DNS poisoning changes browser-side proxy behavior, and internet DNS spoofing usually involves altering a host's DNS configuration or redirecting it to a malicious resolver. The persistence across many users and the recovery after DNS service restart are the most important clues, because they indicate poisoned cached records on the resolver itself rather than isolated endpoint tampering. CEH guidance highlights that DNS cache poisoning can silently redirect users to counterfeit systems while appearing to resolve legitimate domain names normally.

Social engineering attacks that target business processes are especially effective when they mimic legitimate workflows. CEH learning materials emphasize that attackers often exploit trust relationships and organizational procedures rather than attempting broad or generic phishing methods. In the context of HR operations, onboarding portals are highly trusted and frequently accessed by new employees who expect to enter personal information, submit documents, and receive initial network credentials. By creating a fake onboarding portal that closely resembles the organization's internal system, an attacker can collect credentials without triggering suspicion because the action being requested appears normal and expected. This method leverages procedural familiarity, brand consistency, and the implied authority of HR communications, making it far more effective than generic phishing emails or unsolicited social media messages. Phone calls, while sometimes useful, involve real-time interaction and increase the chance of detection. The fake portal, however, seamlessly integrates into existing processes, making it the most effective and lowest-profile approach for acquiring network credentials.

In CEH v13 Information Security and Ethical Hacking Overview, script kiddies are defined as individuals with limited technical knowledge who rely on pre-written tools, scripts, and exploits created by others to carry out attacks. They typically lack a deep understanding of how the underlying exploits work.
CEH v13 categorizes attackers based on skill level and intent. Script kiddies sit at the lower end of the skill spectrum. They often download exploit kits, automated scanners, or attack frameworks and run them with minimal customization. While their attacks may be unsophisticated, they can still cause damage due to the availability of powerful tools.
Option B accurately reflects this definition. Options A and D describe skilled attackers or programmers, which contradicts the CEH classification. Option C is incorrect because ethical hackers use tools responsibly with authorization and possess a strong understanding of security principles.
CEH v13 emphasizes that although script kiddies are less skilled, they pose a risk because automation allows them to exploit known vulnerabilities at scale. This is why organizations must patch systems promptly and implement baseline security controls.
Thus, Option B is the correct answer.