The answer is using OllyDbg to step through the unpacking routine, performing strings analysis on the packed binary, and identifying the original entry point (OEP) via stack-based techniques. These three techniques are effective for unpacking packed malware during static analysis because they allow an analyst to bypass the packer’s obfuscation layer without executing the sample. OllyDbg enables controlled stepping through the unpacking stub to reach the OEP, while strings analysis can reveal remnants like import hints or configuration data that survive packing, and OEP identification provides the jump-off point for dumping the unpacked binary. On the CHFI exam, this tests your understanding of how packers hide malicious code and the forensic methods to reverse that process—a common trap is assuming packed files are entirely opaque, but static analysis can still yield clues. Memory tip: “Step, String, Stack” to recall the three core approaches for unpacking during static analysis.
CHFI Mobile and Malware Forensics Practice Question
This CHFI practice question tests your understanding of mobile and malware forensics. This is a configuration task: choose the command set that satisfies every stated requirement. Small differences — like 'secret' vs 'password' or 'transport input ssh' vs 'all' — change whether the answer is correct. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
A malware analyst is performing static analysis on a packed executable. Which THREE techniques are effective for unpacking or analyzing packed malware? (Select THREE.)
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Performing strings analysis on the packed binary
Option B is correct because performing strings analysis on a packed binary can reveal embedded strings, such as import hints, configuration data, or the original entry point (OEP), which may survive packing. While packing obfuscates many strings, some packers leave remnants that static analysis tools like `strings` can extract, providing initial clues about the malware's functionality without execution.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
✗
Renaming the file to .txt
Why it's wrong here
Renaming does not affect the packed code.
✓
Performing strings analysis on the packed binary
Why this is correct
Strings may reveal embedded data or unpacked code regions.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✓
Running PEiD to identify the packer
Why this is correct
PEiD can detect many common packers, guiding the analyst on how to unpack.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Executing the sample in Cuckoo Sandbox
Why it's wrong here
Cuckoo Sandbox is a dynamic analysis tool, not static.
✓
Using OllyDbg to step through the unpacking routine
Why this is correct
OllyDbg is a debugger that can trace unpacking code.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
EC-Council often tests the distinction between static and dynamic analysis techniques, and the trap here is that candidates may incorrectly select dynamic methods like Cuckoo Sandbox (Option D) when the question explicitly limits the scope to static analysis.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Under the hood, packers like UPX or ASPack compress or encrypt the original executable and prepend a small decompression stub. Static analysis tools such as PEiD (Option C) identify packers by scanning for known signatures in the PE header or entry point code, while OllyDbg (Option E) can be used to step through the unpacking stub at runtime, but this is a dynamic approach. In real-world scenarios, analysts often combine static identification (PEiD) with dynamic unpacking (OllyDbg) to reconstruct the original binary, but only PEiD and strings analysis are purely static techniques among the correct options.
KKey Concepts to Remember
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
→Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
→Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A practitioner preparing for the CHFI exam encounters this exact type of scenario on the job. The correct answer here is not the most general option — it is the best answer for the specific constraint described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Real exam questions reward reading the full scenario before eliminating options, because the constraint defines which answer fits.
Related glossary terms
Concepts from this question explained
These glossary pages explain the core terms tested in this CHFI question in full detail.
Mobile and Malware Forensics — This question tests Mobile and Malware Forensics — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Performing strings analysis on the packed binary — Option B is correct because performing strings analysis on a packed binary can reveal embedded strings, such as import hints, configuration data, or the original entry point (OEP), which may survive packing. While packing obfuscates many strings, some packers leave remnants that static analysis tools like `strings` can extract, providing initial clues about the malware's functionality without execution.
What should I do if I get this CHFI question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
This CHFI practice question is part of Courseiva's free EC-Council 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 CHFI exam.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.