CEH Practice Question: Advanced Topics: Wireless, Cloud, IoT, Cryptography

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

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

• ✗

  SQL injection

  Why it's wrong here

  SQL injection primarily targets web applications that interact with backend relational databases through user-supplied input fields. While some IoT management platforms might be vulnerable to SQLi, the vast majority of IoT devices themselves, particularly their embedded firmware and direct communication interfaces, do not expose SQL query interfaces. Therefore, it is not a common direct attack vector against the devices' core functionality or firmware.

• ✓

  Default credentials

  Why this is correct

  Many IoT devices are manufactured with default usernames and passwords that are either hardcoded, easily guessable, or publicly known. Users often neglect to change these factory settings, creating a significant vulnerability that persists throughout the device's lifecycle. Attackers can leverage these weak or default credentials to gain unauthorized access, take control of the device, or integrate it into botnets without needing complex exploits.

• ✓

  Insecure protocols (e.g., plain MQTT)

  Why this is correct

  Many IoT communication protocols, such as plain MQTT, CoAP, or HTTP without TLS, are designed for lightweight operation and often lack robust security features like encryption, authentication, or message integrity. This absence of security mechanisms allows attackers to easily intercept sensitive data, inject malicious commands, or spoof device identities. Such insecure communication channels are a prevalent and critical vulnerability in IoT ecosystems, compromising data confidentiality and integrity.

• ✗

  Side-channel attacks

  Why it's wrong here

  Side-channel attacks exploit physical characteristics of a device's operation, such as power consumption, electromagnetic emissions, or timing variations, to infer sensitive information like cryptographic keys. While highly effective in specific scenarios against high-value targets, these attacks typically require physical proximity, specialized equipment, and significant expertise. They are generally not a common remote attack vector for the vast majority of deployed IoT devices due to their complexity and resource requirements for widespread exploitation.

• ✗

  ARP spoofing

  Why it's wrong here

  ARP spoofing is a network-level attack that manipulates the Address Resolution Protocol to associate an attacker's MAC address with the IP address of another device on the local network. This allows the attacker to intercept, modify, or drop traffic intended for the legitimate target. While IoT devices can certainly be affected by ARP spoofing if they are on the same local network, this attack vector is not specific to IoT vulnerabilities; it targets the fundamental ARP protocol and affects any networked device, not just IoT.

Go deeper

Related to this question