CHFI Application, Email and Cloud Forensics Practice Question
In an email header, an analyst notices the following: 'Received: from mail.attacker.com (192.168.2.100) by mail.victim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC123 for <user@victim.com>; ...'. The 'From' address appears as 'ceo@victim.com'. Which type of attack is most likely?
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
✓
Email spoofing
The email claims to be from 'ceo@victim.com' but was received from 'mail.attacker.com', indicating the sender forged the From address. This is email spoofing.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Man-in-the-middle
Why it's wrong here
Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks rely on intercepting and relaying traffic between two legitimate endpoints, allowing the attacker to read or alter messages in transit. In email, that could involve hijacking SMTP sessions or exploiting STARTTLS, but the observed mismatch between the From domain and the originating server is a static artifact in the message headers, not evidence of a live interception. The header can be forged at creation time without any on-path attacker, so the available data points to spoofed identities, not a compromised communication channel.
- ✓
Email spoofing
Why this is correct
Email spoofing is the forgery of email header fields, typically the From/Reply-To address, to make a message appear to originate from a trusted source while it actually came from an unrelated or attacker-controlled server. Here, the originating Received server and HELO/EHLO identity do not align with the claimed From domain, which is exactly the signature of a spoofed message. SMTP lacks built-in sender authentication, so unlike a MITM that alters traffic in transit, this anomaly is the result of direct manipulation of the message headers during composition.
- ✗
Malware attachment
Why it's wrong here
Choosing malware attachment would require evidence of a payload, such as a suspicious file name, executable MIME type, or an embedded URL referenced in the headers—none of which is present in this observation. A From domain and originating server mismatch reveals identity fraud, not the presence of a malicious payload; malware can just as easily be delivered from an authentic domain. The header anomaly alone cannot support a malware verdict because it explains only the message's claimed provenance, not its content.
- ✗
Phishing
Why it's wrong here
Phishing describes a malicious campaign that uses deception to persuade a victim into taking a harmful action, such as revealing credentials or downloading malware, and it often includes psychological lures. Whereas email spoofing is the precise header-forgery technique seen here, phishing is a broader goal-oriented attack that may or may not use forged headers. Without evidence of the intended lure, landing page, or call-to-action, the observed mismatch explains the impersonation mechanism but does not prove the full phishing objective.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CHFI question is part of Courseiva's 745-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
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.