Identifying Ping of Death via Oversized Packets
Short answer
D The Ping of Death attack is identified by sending fragmented IP packets that exceed the maximum allowable size, causing buffer overflows and system instability upon reassembly.
Question
Key Takeaways
The key to this question is recognizing that 'packet sizes exceeding the prescribed size limit' refers specifically to malformed or oversized fragments used in a Ping of Death attack, rather than just high volume traffic.
This question tests the identification of Denial of Service techniques based on specific traffic anomalies. The correct answer is D because the scenario describes packet sizes exceeding prescribed limits, which is the defining characteristic of a Ping of Death attack.
Common mistake: Candidates often confuse DoS types by focusing on the result (system crash) rather than the mechanism. They might choose Smurf or UDP Flood due to the mention of 'increase in traffic', missing the critical detail about packet size violations.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
The Ping of Death attack exploits the TCP/IP specification by sending fragmented IP packets that are larger than the maximum allowed size of 65,535 bytes. When the target system reassembles these malformed packets, it causes buffer overflows, leading to system crashes or instability. The prompt explicitly mentions "packet sizes exceeding the prescribed size limit," which is the technical signature of this attack.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
A Smurf attack (A) relies on amplification using ICMP echo requests sent to broadcast addresses, not oversized packets. A UDP flood (B) involves overwhelming a target with a high volume of UDP traffic, focusing on bandwidth exhaustion rather than packet structure. A Pulse wave attack (C) involves alternating between periods of high and low traffic rates to evade detection thresholds, unrelated to packet size limits.
Community Comment Notes
Community consensus strongly supports option D. Users noted that the phrase "packet sizes exceeding the prescribed size limit" is the definitive clue for Ping of Death. One user highlighted that while Smurf attacks increase traffic, they do so via spoofing, whereas Ping of Death targets the fragmentation reassembly process. As one commenter stated, "It has to be Ping of death since it mentions... packet sizes exceeding the prescribed size limit."
Exam Strategy
When analyzing DoS scenarios, distinguish between volumetric attacks (like floods) and protocol exploitation attacks (like Ping of Death). Always look for keywords related to packet structure, such as 'fragmented,' 'oversized,' 'malformed,' or 'reassembly issues,' which point to vulnerabilities in the IP layer rather than simple bandwidth saturation.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does Ping of Death differ from a standard ICMP flood?
Why is the Smurf attack not the correct answer here?
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer D. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Discussion 5 contributions
Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.
From public community threads 5
-
smoce 👍 4 Answered DA Ping of Death (PoD) attack is a form of DDoS attack in which an attacker sends the recipient device simple ping requests as fragmented IP packets that are oversized or malformed.
-
insaniunt 👍 4 Answered DD - Ping of Death Module 10 Page 1441 from CEH v12 book
-
medithaperera 👍 2It has to be Ping of death since it mentions "with patterns suggesting packet sizes exceeding the prescribed size limit". if it is just a DOS attack it is surely an UDP flood attack
-
remrey 👍 1Answer: D Smurf attacks involve amplifying network traffic to overwhelm a target, using spoofed broadcast ping messages, while Ping of Death attacks focus on exploiting packet size vulnerabilities to cause system failures.
-
[Removed] 👍 1Could someone please validate this information
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.