Deal of The Day! 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 9 Question 99 Discussion

Actual exam question for Eccouncil's 312-50 exam
Question #: 99
Topic #: 9
[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:

Buck
1 months ago
I bet the server admin is just sitting there, sipping their coffee, waiting for the inevitable crash. 'Slow HTTP POST? More like slow HTTP roast.'
upvoted 0 times
Miesha
6 days ago
User 3: And each connection being held up for 15 seconds, that's a significant attack duration.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alease
13 days ago
User 2: Yeah, with 100 connections exceeding the server's capacity of 90 connections per second.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tiffiny
14 days ago
User 1: Option B seems like it will cause the longest server unavailability.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Alaine
1 months ago
Ah, the joys of web server security! I wonder if the attacker's going to try some 'slow clap' attacks next.
upvoted 0 times
Tammara
20 days ago
I hope our server can handle the attack duration. We need to be prepared for any security threats.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jesse
24 days 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
...
Kanisha
25 days 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
...
...
Nikita
2 months ago
But what about option A? The server can handle 110 connections per second, so even with the attacker's 100 connections, it should still be operational.
upvoted 0 times
...
Louann
2 months ago
I agree. The server can only handle 90 connections per second, and with each connection held up for 15 seconds, it could cause a significant impact.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fidelia
2 months ago
This is a classic case of a Slow HTTP POST attack. I'd go with option B as well. The server just can't keep up with the attacker's onslaught, and the 15-second hold-up time is going to be a major problem.
upvoted 0 times
Elenor
13 days ago
It's a tough situation for the server to handle, especially with the attacker's slow but steady approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delmy
23 days ago
The attacker's strategy of holding up each connection for 15 seconds will really make a difference in this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Devon
25 days ago
Yeah, the server can only handle 90 connections per second, so it's definitely going to be overwhelmed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ming
1 months ago
Option B seems like the best choice here. The server will struggle with 100 connections at 15 seconds each.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Melita
2 months ago
I agree with Jodi. Option B seems to be the best choice here. The server's capacity being exceeded, coupled with the lengthy hold-up time, sounds like a recipe for disaster.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jodi
2 months ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'd say option B is the most likely to cause the longest server unavailability. The attacker's 100 connections exceeding the server's 90 connections per second, combined with the 15-second hold-up time, could really put a strain on the system.
upvoted 0 times
James
1 months ago
User1: Agreed, option B seems like the most challenging scenario for the server to handle.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elroy
1 months ago
Mila: Definitely, the combination of exceeding connections and longer hold-up time is a recipe for trouble.
upvoted 0 times
...
Natalie
1 months ago
User 3: With each connection held up for 15 seconds, it could lead to a significant attack duration.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
1 months ago
User3: The 15-second hold-up time per connection in option B could definitely make the server unavailable for a significant duration.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adrianna
1 months ago
User2: Yeah, the attacker's 100 connections exceeding the server's 90 connections per second could really strain the system.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mila
2 months ago
User 2: Yeah, the attacker's 100 connections exceeding the server's 90 connections per second could really strain the system.
upvoted 0 times
...
Simona
2 months ago
User1: I think option B is the most likely to cause the longest server unavailability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jarvis
2 months ago
User 1: I think option B is the most likely to cause the longest server unavailability.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Carrol
2 months ago
I think option B is the most likely to result in the longest duration of server unavailability.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel