Free EC-Council 312-50V13 CEH V13 Actual Exam Questions - Question 15 Discussion
different utilities to identify WPS-enabled APs in the target wireless network. Ultimately, he
succeeded with one special command-line utility. Which of the following command-line utilities
allowed Morris to discover the WPS-enabled APs?
I agree that wash sounds like the obvious choice since it’s built for spotting WPS-enabled APs. Looking at the other options, ntptrace is for tracing NTP servers, macof floods switches with MAC addresses, and net View is a Windows command to list network shares — none of which relate to detecting WPS. So eliminating B, C, and D seems straightforward. But is there any chance the question implies a different environment or toolset where wash wouldn't be accessible? Otherwise, wash definitely fits the bill here.
Probably A. wash makes the most sense since it’s designed specifically to detect WPS-enabled access points. The other tools don’t really focus on wireless scanning or WPS features. Macof is about flooding, ntptrace and net View don’t interact with wireless APs at all. So wash fits the description perfectly here.
Not B or D since ntptrace and net View don’t deal with wireless or WPS scanning. C (macof) is more about MAC flooding attacks, so A (wash) is the clear choice here.
Totally agree, wash is the only one that makes sense here for WPS scanning. A
Exactly, ntptrace and net View don’t scan wireless APs, so that narrows it down to wash.
Makes sense that it’s A. The others are unrelated to scanning for WPS APs, so wash is the only one that fits the scenario. A
A vs C? C is more about flooding switches with MAC frames, so it doesn’t fit here. Wash is definitely the go-to for finding WPS-enabled APs.
A definitely makes sense since wash is part of Reaver and built specifically to detect WPS-enabled APs, unlike the others which don’t deal with wireless scanning at all.
A imo, because ntptrace checks time servers, macof floods switches, and net View is for Windows network shares. wash is the only one designed to find WPS-enabled APs.
Option A works here because wash specifically scans for WPS-enabled access points, while the others focus on different network functions that don't detect WPS status.
Probably A. wash sounds familiar for scanning WPS-enabled APs, the others don’t really fit with that task.