Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From CEH v13 Guide Topics:
The correct answer is A. hashing algorithms. In information security and cryptography, hashing algorithms are specifically designed to provide data integrity. A hash function takes an input message, file, or data block and produces a fixed-length value known as a hash, message digest, or checksum. If even a single bit of the original data changes, the resulting hash value changes significantly, making unauthorized modifications easy to detect.
Common cryptographic hash algorithms include SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512. These algorithms are widely used to verify the integrity of files, software downloads, digital documents, emails, and transmitted network data. During verification, the recipient calculates the hash of the received data and compares it to the original hash value. If the values match, the data has maintained its integrity.
Option B is incorrect because "integrity algorithms" is not a standard cryptographic algorithm category.
Option C (symmetric algorithms) such as AES and DES primarily provide confidentiality through encryption, while Option D (asymmetric algorithms) such as RSA and ECC are mainly used for encryption, key exchange, authentication, and digital signatures. Although digital signatures can support integrity verification, the fundamental mechanism used to detect changes in data is the cryptographic hash function. Therefore, hashing algorithms are the best answer for guaranteeing message integrity.

The correct answer is WPA2. CEH wireless security material explains that WPA2 uses AES-based encryption together with CCMP, which provides confidentiality and message integrity protection. The scenario also mentions a structured four-message key negotiation process before protected traffic begins, which aligns with the well-known four-way handshake used in WPA and WPA2 environments. The deciding factor is the encryption and integrity combination: AES with CCMP is strongly associated with WPA2 in CEH guidance.
WEP is far weaker and based on RC4, while WPA originally relied on TKIP as its hallmark improvement over WEP. WPA3 introduces newer protections and a different exam emphasis, but the classic CEH mapping for four-way handshake plus AES/CCMP is WPA2. CEH references also note that WPA2 was designed to improve enterprise-grade wireless security and that CCMP addresses integrity concerns more effectively than earlier approaches. Because the packet capture shows AES-based counter mode encryption with integrated integrity checks after the handshake sequence, the observed standard is best identified as WPA2.

The behavior described most closely matches an insider attack, because the actor is a temporary contractor who has physical proximity and implicit access to internal areas where employees work and handle sensitive information. In CEH guidance, an "insider" is not limited to permanent employees; it includes contractors, vendors, interns, and any trusted or semi-trusted individuals who can enter facilities or access internal environments. The attack combines two common insider-facilitated techniques: shoulder surfing and dumpster diving. Recording employees entering passwords is a form of shoulder surfing, where credentials are harvested by observing or capturing authentication entry through direct viewing or recording devices.
Finding sensitive documents in a trash bin indicates dumpster diving, where attackers recover confidential information from improperly disposed materials.
These actions are typically feasible because the attacker is already inside the perimeter and can exploit weak operational security practices, such as lack of clean-desk enforcement, inadequate shredding policies, and insufficient physical monitoring of visitor or contractor activity. CEH materials emphasize that insider threats are particularly dangerous because they bypass many external perimeter controls and can blend into normal workplace behavior.
The other options do not fit. A distribution attack generally refers to compromise introduced through supply chain or third-party distribution channels, not on-site observation and trash retrieval. A passive attack is too generic and does not capture the key element of an authorized or trusted presence enabling the compromise.
"Cisco-in attack" is not a standard CEH attack category for this scenario. Therefore, the most accurate classification is an insider attack.

CEH describes SQL injection testing as a core part of web application assessment. One of the first and safest validation techniques is using a tautology-based SQL injection payload, such as ' OR ' 1 ' = ' 1. If the application concatenates user input directly into SQL queries, such an input will cause the query to always evaluate as true, often returning additional records such as multiple user profiles. This confirms the presence of SQL injection without causing destructive effects like dropping tables. Testing XSS does not validate SQL injection, brute-forcing credentials is unrelated, and directory traversal attacks target file path manipulation rather than backend queries. CEH emphasizes avoiding destructive queries and starting with non-intrusive injection payloads that reveal improper input sanitization, making ' OR ' 1 ' = ' 1 the correct technique for confirming SQL injection vulnerabilities in URL parameters.

The symptoms point directly to a Slowloris attack, which CEH materials classify as an application-layer denial-of-service technique that targets web servers by exhausting their available concurrent connection slots rather than saturating bandwidth. In a Slowloris attack, the attacker opens many HTTP or HTTPS connections to the server and then keeps them alive as long as possible by sending partial, incomplete HTTP requests or very slow header transmissions at timed intervals. Because the requests are never fully completed, the server keeps the connections open, waiting for the remainder of the request. Over time, the server's maximum connection limit is consumed, and legitimate users cannot establish new sessions, even though overall network traffic may remain relatively low.
That exact pattern is described in the scenario: the server is "struggling to accept new connections," the
"maximum connection limit is nearly reached," and there is "no significant spike in overall network traffic." This is a classic indicator of low-and-slow DoS behavior, which can be harder to detect because it does not resemble a high-volume flood.
A SYN Flood attack can also exhaust connection resources, but it typically creates a large number of half- open TCP connections and is usually more apparent in network-level telemetry and SYN backlog behavior. A UDP Flood generally causes a noticeable traffic spike. "Peer-to-Peer Attack" describes a botnet architecture style, not the specific technique used here. Therefore, the attack being simulated is Slowloris.