212-89 Exam Dumps - EC Council Certified Incident Handler (ECIH v3)

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.

Explanation (aligned to IH&R best practice):

Insider threats are most effectively reduced by combining least privilege with continuous detection of abnormal behavior. Regular access reviews ensure that users only retain permissions needed for their roles (reducing “privilege creep”), while behavior analytics help detect misuse that still occurs within “legitimate” access. Password rotation (A) is largely hygiene and does not prevent a determined insider who already has authorized access; frequent forced changes can also push unsafe behaviors (writing passwords down, predictable patterns). A strict hierarchy (B) is not practical and does not map to “need-to-know”—seniority is not the right control boundary, job function is. Biometrics (C) strengthens authentication, but the scenario’s problem is not identity uncertainty; it is misuse by a valid insider. The most effective approach is therefore governance + monitoring: (1) define data access baselines, (2) review permissions routinely, (3) alert on suspicious actions such as unusual repository cloning, bulk downloads, access outside normal hours, or atypical branches, and (4) investigate quickly with HR/legal processes. These measures directly address motive-driven misuse by enabling early detection and limiting the blast radius. This aligns with the broader incident handling emphasis on identifying affected systems/data, understanding scope, and improving controls post-incident to prevent recurrence.

In the described attack, where attackers pose as legitimate access points (APs) by beaconing the WLAN's SSID to lure users, the attack is known as an Evil twin AP attack. This type of attack involves setting up a rogue AP with the same SSID as a legitimate wireless access point, making it appear as an authorized network to users. Unsuspecting users may connect to this malicious AP, allowing attackers to intercept sensitive information, conduct man-in-the-middle attacks, or distribute malware. The Evil twin AP attack exploits the trust users have in known SSIDs to compromise their security.

The ECIH Introduction to Incident Handling module identifies social engineering as a primary method attackers use to gain unauthorized access without exploiting technical vulnerabilities.

Option C is correct because the attack relied on deception—spoofed notifications and lookalike domains—to trick users into disclosing credentials. This is a classic social engineering technique, often used as the initial access vector.

Options A, B, and D are technical reconnaissance or network attacks, not human-focused deception.

Recognizing social engineering as the root cause is essential for selecting appropriate remediation actions such as user awareness training, phishing defenses, and MFA, all emphasized in ECIH guidance.

Restoring web application services with the help of existing backups, as performed by Robert, falls under the Recovery stage of the Incident Handling and Response (IH&R) process. The Recovery stage involves actions taken to return the organization to normal operations after an incident, which includes restoring systems to their operational state using backups, patching vulnerabilities, and ensuring that all systems are clean and secure before being brought back online. This step is crucial for resuming business operations and mitigating the impact of the incident.

As of my last update, the most recent NIST standard for incident response was NIST Special Publication 800-61 Revision 2 (800-61r2), titled "Computer Security Incident Handling Guide." This document provides guidelines for establishing an effective incident response program, including preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, recovery, and post-incident activity.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is a primary source for cloud computing standards and guidelines, the five main actors in cloud computing are Consumer, Provider, Carrier, Auditor, and Broker. These roles are defined as follows:

Consumer: The person or organization that uses cloud computing services.

Provider: The entity that provides the cloud services to consumers.

Carrier: The organization that offers connectivity and transport services to cloud providers and consumers.

Auditor: An independent party that assesses and verifies the cloud services, security controls, and operations.

Broker: An entity that manages the use, performance, and delivery of cloud services, and negotiates relationships between cloud providers and consumers.

These actors play critical roles in the ecosystem of cloud computing, ensuring the services are delivered and used securely, efficiently, and effectively.

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) Title V, titled "Analyst Conflicts of Interest," contains measures specifically designed to restore investor confidence in the reporting of securities analysts. It addresses the issue of potential conflicts of interest for securities analysts who recommend stocks and other securities by requiring disclosure of certain relationships and financial interests between analysts and the companies they cover. This part of the SOX Act aims to ensure that investors receive unbiased and accurate information from analysts, thereby helping to restore trust in financial markets. Title V consists of only one section, making it unique compared to other titles within the Act that may encompass multiple sections or provisions.