Which method is NOT regarded as a prevention technique for IP spoofing:

Question

Options

• ANot relying on IP address based authentication
• BIntrusion Detection System implementation
• CEncryption requirement on all network traffic
• DRouter based packet filtering

• A
  13% (6)
• B
  9% (4)
• C
  73% (33)
• D
  4% (2)

Explanation

Encryption alone addresses data confidentiality in transit, but it does nothing to prevent an attacker from forging the source IP address in a packet's header - the IP header fields remain manipulable regardless of whether the payload is encrypted. This makes C the odd one out: it's a privacy/integrity control, not a spoofing prevention control.

The distractors are all genuine anti-spoofing measures:

• A removes the attack's value entirely - if systems don't trust IP addresses for authentication, a spoofed IP gains the attacker nothing.
• B (IDS) can detect anomalous traffic patterns (e.g., packets arriving from unexpected subnets) that indicate active spoofing.
• D (router packet filtering / ingress-egress filtering, also called BCP38) drops packets whose source IP doesn't match the expected network range, blocking spoofed packets at the perimeter.

Memory tip: Think "SPOOF = Source address fraud." Ask yourself, "Does this control validate or neutralize the source address?" - A, B, and D all do; encryption (C) only scrambles the payload and never touches the source IP field.

No community discussion yet for this question.