Courseiva
easyMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

PT0-002 Practice Question: A penetration tester has compromised a Linux…

A penetration tester has compromised a Linux server and gained a low-privilege shell. The tester discovers that the /etc/shadow file is readable by the tester's user. Which attack is most directly enabled by this finding?

⚠ Common exam trap

A common mix-up: candidates confuse the ability to read a password hash file with a pass-the-hash attack, but pass-the-hash is a Windows-specific technique that requires NTLM hashes and a network authentication context, not a local file read on Linux.

Answer choices

Why each option matters

Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.

Correct answer & explanation

Password cracking offline

The /etc/shadow file contains the hashed passwords for all users on the system. If a low-privilege user can read this file, they can copy the password hashes and attempt to crack them offline using tools like John the Ripper or Hashcat. This directly enables an offline password cracking attack, as the tester can brute-force or use dictionary attacks against the hashes without needing to interact with the live system.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

  • Pass-the-hash

    Why it's wrong here

    Pass-the-hash is a lateral movement technique that extracts NTLM password hashes from Windows memory (LSASS) or the SAM hive and replays them in the NTLM challenge-response authentication handshake without ever knowing the plaintext password. The /etc/shadow file contains Unix crypt hashes (e.g., SHA-512 or yescrypt) plus a salt, which are verified through the crypt() function rather than a network challenge-response protocol. Simply replaying a shadow hash over SSH or su would fail because Linux does not implement NTLM-style hash pass-through. An attacker would still need to crack the hash offline to obtain the plaintext password for any interactive login.

  • Password cracking offline

    Why this is correct

    Reading /etc/shadow is effectively game over for the compromised account's password: the file stores salted, one-way hashes of every local user's password, and an attacker can copy those hash strings directly to a cracking tool. John the Ripper's 'unshadow' utility combines /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow entries, or Hashcat can ingest the raw hash lines, enabling dictionary, rule-based, hybrid, or brute-force attacks at billions of guesses per second on GPU hardware. Even strong passwords fall to hybrid or mask attacks if the password policy is weak, and reused credentials often appear in prior breach data. Because the hashes are fully in hand, this offline cracking approach is the primary and most practical path after obtaining /etc/shadow.

  • LLMNR poisoning

    Why it's wrong here

    LLMNR poisoning (e.g., using Responder) is a Windows network attack that listens for Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution queries and replies with spoofed responses to trick victim hosts into sending NTLMv2 authentication challenges to the attacker. It operates entirely on the wire, capturing hashes by impersonating file servers, printers, or other network services, and has no relationship to local file contents. The /etc/shadow file stores credential material at rest, not network traffic, and Linux does not use LLMNR for name resolution—it relies on DNS or mDNS. Thus, having read /etc/shadow would give no advantage to an attacker attempting LLMNR poisoning.

  • Kerberoasting

    Why it's wrong here

    Kerberoasting is an Active Directory attack in which a domain-authenticated user requests Kerberos service tickets (TGS-REP) for accounts that have Service Principal Names (SPNs), then extracts the encrypted ticket and cracks the service account's password offline. This requires Kerberos infrastructure, a Ticket-Granting Ticket, and an SPN to target—none of which exist on a standalone Linux server. The local /etc/shadow hashes are unrelated to Kerberos ticket encryption, and the attack does not involve reading local authentication files. Consequently, Kerberoasting is completely inapplicable after compromising a Linux host where the attacker only has access to the shadow file.

About these practice questions

Courseiva writes every PT0-003 question from scratch — 185 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →

How Courseiva writes practice questions · Editorial policy

JA

Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security

Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva

This PT0-003 practice question is part of Courseiva's free CompTIA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the PT0-003 exam.