A network engineer receives a call regarding multiple LAN-connected devices that are on the same switch. The devices have suddenly been experiencing speed and latency issues while connecting to network resources. The engineer enters the command show mac address-table and reviews the following output:
Which of the following best describes the attack that is currently in progress'?
The symptoms described, such as experiencing speed and latency issues, along with the duplicate MAC addresses in the MAC address table, align with characteristics of ARP poisoning. ARP poisoning occurs when an attacker sends forged ARP messages to a switch, causing traffic to be sent to the wrong MAC address. This results in data being intercepted or modified by the attacker, which can lead to latency and connectivity problems. The presence of the same MAC address on multiple ports strongly suggests ARP poisoning. In contrast, MAC flooding involves overwhelming the switch with numerous MAC addresses to fill the MAC address table, but this would typically result in a more extensive list of different MAC addresses rather than duplications. Hence, ARP poisoning is the most suitable answer based on the provided information.
I do not think this is mac flooding as each port only has one mac address, but if you look closely we can see duplicate MACs indicating a man in the middle attach which leverages ARP poisoning.
Both A and C could be plausible answers given different circumstances. In the context of the question, MAC flooding seems more likely for a few reasons. In a MAC flooding attack, the attacker tries to overwhelm the switch's MAC address table with many different MAC addresses, often fake or spoofed, in an attempt to make the switch behave like a hub and broadcast all traffic. In the output provided, we see a single MAC address (00-04-18-EB-14-30) appearing on two different ports, which could be an indication of such an attack. ARP poisoning, on the other hand, involves sending spoofed ARP messages over a local area network. This could also be a possibility, but the question does not provide direct evidence of this. In an ARP poisoning attack, we would expect to see MACs associated with IPs they shouldn't be, but the output provided doesn't include any IP addresses, so it's difficult to identify ARP poisoning based on the information given. Given these considerations, the evidence provided in the question makes A (MAC flooding) a more likely answer.
The MAC is Clone, C is correct.
MAC Flooding related to ports ARP poisoning related to IP
There's an evidence of MAC Cloning/Spoofing (Port Fa0/1 and Fa0/4). No overwhelmingly use of different MAC addresses in the table attacking a single or multiple ports; so I would say this is NOT a MAC flooding. I'll go with ARP Poisoning from On-path attack (MITM) that also able to send a CLONED MAC to attack.
ARP poisoning involves sending forged ARP messages to network devices, tricking them into associating an attacker's MAC address with a legitimate IP address. This allows the attacker to intercept traffic meant for the legitimate device. Therefore, considering the presence of multiple MAC addresses associated with the same IP address, ARP poisoning is the most likely attack scenario depicted in the image. The table shows devices on the same VLAN (1), suggesting they are on the same network segment and could be targeted by ARP poisoning. The attacker's MAC address (00-04-18-EB-14-30) appears multiple times in the table, further indicating ARP poisoning attempts.
ARP POISONING Mac flooding occurs on one port.
That not an arp table. Rules out arp.
ARP poisoning corrupts the ARP cache of a victim by assigning the attacker's MAC address to a legitimate IP address in the network through an ARP response to the victim. MAC flooding, on the other hand, aims to overwhelm the MAC address table of a switch by flooding it with an excessive number of fake source Ethernet frames. The attack described above is a MAC cloning attack. In MAC cloning, instead of compromising the switch's resources, the attacker spoofs the MAC address of a victim, impersonating him/her by assigning that MAC address to another Ethernet port on a switch. The attacker can now evade detection and spoof any packets destined for the victim. Therefore, the answer should be MAC cloning!
Agreed. MAC Cloning seems to be what is shown in the table. Duplicate MAC addresses. I don't see how this is MAC flooding or ARP poisoning.
A - MAC flooding is an attempt to overwhelm, the questions states speed and latency issues. The picture also shows only a MAC address table so there is no way to confirm it is an ARP poison without a an IP. Similar picture on question 149, and the answer is the MAC flood. https://www.examtopics.com/discussions/comptia/view/80644-exam-sy0-601-topic-1-question-149-discussion/
In MAC Flooding, the target is a switch, whereas in ARP poisoning, the target is often the subnet's default gateway. The fact that we are looking at a MAC table and seeing that VLAN1 has each of its ports being forwarded traffic implies MAC flooding. In ARP Poisoning, a packet crafter is used to broadcast ARP reply packets to a receiving device so it will update its MAC:IP address table with a spoofed address. Therefore, I personally do not see enough evidence within the question to justify selecting ARP poisoning.
There are no IPs for us to assume its ARP poisoning. Based on the facts we have, which are latency and speed issues, the only reasonable option is A - MAC Flooding. I believe the duplicate MAC in the table is meant as a trick for over-thinkers to fall for it. I see why you'd think it might be C but again, based on the context of this question it cannot. You're going on a limb and assuming something thats not in the Q!!!! pay attention
C. ARP poisoning
C. ARP poisoning This is an attempt to redirect traffic to an attacking host by sending an ARP packet that contains the forged address of the next hop router. The attacker tricks the victim into believing that it is the legitimate router by sending a spoofed ARP reply with its own MAC address. This causes the victim to send all its traffic to the attacker instead of the router. The attacker can then intercept, modify, or drop the packets as they please.
After much research and considering the question further, I am able to find the clue that leads the answer to being MAC flooding: Sudden speed and latency issues. ARP poisoning will not have a sudden dramatic impact as it does cause a flood of traffic on the network quite like a MAC flood. When the switch's MAC table is full, it reverts to a hub mode and forwards all packets to all ports, vs 1-to-1 in a normal switching operation, the reason being is that it can no longer direct traffic as it has no idea where it should go.
It is ARP poisoning
This is more of a mac cloning attack than flooding, but flooding is the closest thing to it. From the output given, we cannot definitively say it's ARP poisoning.
In a MAC flooding attack, the attacker sends a large number of frames with different source MAC addresses to fill up the CAM (Content Addressable Memory) table on a switch. Once the table is full, the switch enters a "fail-open" state, where it starts flooding traffic to all ports, essentially turning into a hub. This can lead to network congestion, speed issues, and increased latency.