Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Eccouncil Exam 312-50 Topic 19 Question 89 Discussion

Actual exam question for Eccouncil's 312-50 exam
Question #: 89
Topic #: 19
[All 312-50 Questions]

An audacious attacker is targeting a web server you oversee. He intends to perform a Slow HTTP POST attack, by manipulating 'a' HTTP connection. Each connection sends a byte of data every 'b' second, effectively holding up the connections for an extended period. Your server is designed to manage 'm' connections per second, but any connections exceeding this number tend to overwhelm the system. Given 'a=100' and variable 'm', along with the attacker's intention of maximizing the attack duration 'D=a*b', consider the following scenarios. Which is most likely to result in the longest duration of server unavailability?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

A Slow HTTP POST attack is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that exploits the way web servers handle HTTP requests. The attacker sends a legitimate HTTP POST header to the web server, specifying a large amount of data to be sent in the request body. However, the attacker then sends the data very slowly, keeping the connection open and occupying the server's resources. The attacker can launch multiple such connections, exceeding the server's capacity to handle concurrent requests and preventing legitimate users from accessing the web server.

The attack duration D is given by the formula D = a * b, where a is the number of connections and b is the hold-up time per connection. The attacker intends to maximize D by manipulating a and b. The server can manage m connections per second, but any connections exceeding m will overwhelm the system. Therefore, the scenario that is most likely to result in the longest duration of server unavailability is the one where a > m and b is the largest. Among the four options, this is the case for option B, where a = 100, m = 90, and b = 15. In this scenario, D = 100 * 15 = 1500 seconds, which is the longest among the four options. Option A has a larger b, but a < m, so the server can handle the connections without being overwhelmed. Option C has a > m, but a smaller b, so the attack duration is shorter. Option D has a > m, but a smaller b and a smaller difference between a and m, so the attack duration is also shorter. Reference:

What is a Slow POST Attack & How to Prevent One? (Guide)

Mitigate Slow HTTP GET/POST Vulnerabilities in the Apache HTTP Server - Acunetix

What is a Slow Post DDoS Attack? | NETSCOUT


Contribute your Thoughts:

Maryann
3 months ago
Well, at least the attacker isn't using a Slow Loris attack. That would be even more deliciously devious!
upvoted 0 times
...
Carin
3 months ago
105 connections per second is more than enough to handle the attacker's 100 connections, and the 12-second hold-up time is manageable. This seems like the best option.
upvoted 0 times
Ryan
3 months ago
Yeah, with 105 connections per second, the server should be able to handle the attack.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tula
3 months ago
I agree, option D seems like the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Alaine
3 months ago
That's true, but the attacker's 100 connections could still cause some issues, especially if they are held up for a long time.
upvoted 0 times
...
Almeta
3 months ago
But what about option A? The server can handle 110 connections per second, so it might not be as bad as option B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ludivina
3 months ago
95 connections per second is just not enough to handle the attacker's 100 connections, even with a lower hold-up time. I'd say this is the second-worst scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shala
4 months ago
With the server only able to handle 90 connections per second and the attacker's 100 connections held up for 15 seconds each, this scenario is definitely the most problematic.
upvoted 0 times
Samuel
2 months ago
C) 95, b=10: Here, the server can handle 95 connections per second, but it falls short against the attacker's 100 connections, albeit the hold-up time per connection is lower
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
2 months ago
B) m=90, b=15: The server can manage 90 connections per second, but the attacker's 100 connections exceed this, and with each connection held up for 15 seconds, the attack duration could be significant
upvoted 0 times
...
Eden
3 months ago
A) m=110, b=20: Despite the attacker sending 100 connections, the server can handle 110 connections per second, therefore likely staying operative, regardless of the hold-up time per connection
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ming
4 months ago
I agree with Alaine. With only 90 connections per second and each connection held up for 15 seconds, the server could be overwhelmed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alaine
4 months ago
I think option B is the most likely to result in the longest duration of server unavailability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
4 months ago
The server can handle 110 connections per second, so this scenario is the most likely to keep the server operational, even with the attacker's slow HTTP POST attack.
upvoted 0 times
Chantell
3 months ago
D) m=105, b=12: The server can manage 105 connections per second, more than the attacker's 100 connections, likely maintaining operation despite a moderate hold-up time
upvoted 0 times
...
Sylvia
3 months ago
C) 95, b=10: Here, the server can handle 95 connections per second, but it falls short against the attacker's 100 connections, albeit the hold-up time per connection is lower
upvoted 0 times
...
Gilberto
3 months ago
B) m=90, b=15: The server can manage 90 connections per second, but the attacker's 100 connections exceed this, and with each connection held up for 15 seconds, the attack duration could be significant
upvoted 0 times
...
Jutta
4 months ago
A) m=110, b=20: Despite the attacker sending 100 connections, the server can handle 110 connections per second, therefore likely staying operative, regardless of the hold-up time per connection
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77