#FactCheck – Debunked: Dhoni's Viral Picture Misinterpreted as Political Support

Executive Summary:

A new threat being uncovered in today’s threat landscape is that while threat actors took an average of one hour and seven minutes to leverage Proof-of-Concept(PoC) exploits after they went public, now the time is at a record low of 22 minutes. This incredibly fast exploitation means that there is very limited time for organizations’ IT departments to address these issues and close the leaks before they are exploited. Cloudflare released the Application Security report which shows that the attack percentage is more often higher than the rate at which individuals invent and develop security countermeasures like the WAF rules and software patches. In one case, Cloudflare noted an attacker using a PoC-based attack within a mere 22 minutes from the moment it was released, leaving almost no time for a remediation window. 

Despite the constant growth of vulnerabilities in various applications and systems, the share of exploited vulnerabilities, which are accompanied by some level of public exploit or PoC code, has remained relatively stable over the past several years and fluctuates around 50%. These vulnerabilities with publicly known exploit code, 41% was initially attacked in the zero-day mode while of those with no known code, 84% was first attacked in the same mode. 

Modus Operandi:

The modus operandi of the attack involving the rapid weaponization of proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits is characterized by the following steps:

• Vulnerability Identification: Threat actors bring together the exploitation of a system vulnerability that may be in the software or hardware of the system; this may be a code error, design failure, or a configuration error. This is normally achieved using vulnerability scanners and test procedures that have to be performed manually. 

• Vulnerability Analysis: After the vulnerability is identified, the attackers study how it operates to determine when and how it can be triggered and what consequences that action will have. This means that one needs to analyze the details of the PoC code or system to find out the connection sequence that leads to vulnerability exploitation. 

• Exploit Code Development: Being aware of the weakness, the attackers develop a small program or script denoted as the PoC that addresses exclusively the identified vulnerability and manipulates it in a moderated manner. This particular code is meant to be utilized in showing a particular penalty, which could be unauthorized access or alteration of data. 

• Public Disclosure and Weaponization: The PoC exploit is released which is frequently done shortly after the vulnerability has been announced to the public. This makes it easier for the attackers to exploit it while waiting for the software developer to release the patch. To illustrate, Cloudflare has spotted an attacker using the PoC-based exploit 22 minutes after the publication only. 

• Attack Execution: The attackers then use the weaponized PoC exploit to attack systems which are known to be vulnerable to it. Some of the actions that are tried in this context are attempts at running remote code, unauthorized access and so on. The pace at which it happens is often much faster than the pace at which humans put in place proper security defense mechanisms, such as the WAF rules or software application fixes. 

• Targeted Operations: Sometimes, they act as if it’s a planned operation, where the attackers are selective in the system or organization to attack. For example, exploitation of CVE-2022-47966 in ManageEngine software was used during the espionage subprocess, where to perform such activity, the attackers used the mentioned vulnerability to install tools and malware connected with espionage. 

Precautions: Mitigation

Following are the mitigating measures against the PoC Exploits: 

1. Fast Patching and New Vulnerability Handling 

• Introduce proper patching procedures to address quickly the security released updates and disclosed vulnerabilities. 

• Focus should be made on the patching of those vulnerabilities that are observed to be having available PoC exploits, which often risks being exploited almost immediately.

• It is necessary to frequently check for the new vulnerability disclosures and PoC releases and have a prepared incident response plan for this purpose. 

2. Leverage AI-Powered Security Tools 

•  Employ intelligent security applications which can easily generate desirable protection rules and signatures as attackers ramp up the weaponization of PoC exploits. 

• Step up use of artificial intelligence (AI) - fueled endpoint detection and response (EDR) applications to quickly detect and mitigate the attempts. 

• Integrate Artificial Intelligence based SIEM tools to Detect & analyze Indicators of compromise to form faster reaction. 

 3. Network Segmentation and Hardening 

• Use strong networking segregation to prevent the attacker’s movement across the network and also restrict the effects of successful attacks. 

• Secure any that are accessible from the internet, and service or protocols such as RDP, CIFS, or Active directory. 

• Limit the usage of native scripting applications as much as possible because cyber attackers may exploit them. 

4. Vulnerability Disclosure and PoC Management 

• Inform the vendors of the bugs and PoC exploits and make sure there is a common understanding of when they are reported, to ensure fast response and mitigation. 

• It is suggested to incorporate mechanisms like digital signing and encryption for managing and distributing PoC exploits to prevent them from being accessed by unauthorized persons. 

• Exploits used in PoC should be simple and independent with clear and meaningful variable and function names that help reduce time spent on triage and remediation. 

5. Risk Assessment and Response to Incidents 

• Maintain constant supervision of the environment with an intention of identifying signs of a compromise, as well as, attempts of exploitation. 

• Support a frequent detection, analysis and fighting of threats, which use PoC exploits into the system and its components. 

• Regularly communicate with security researchers and vendors to understand the existing threats and how to prevent them.

Conclusion:

The rapid process of monetization of Proof of Concept (POC) exploits is one of the most innovative and constantly expanding global threats to cybersecurity at the present moment. Cyber security experts must react quickly while applying a patch, incorporate AI to their security tools, efficiently subdivide their networks and always heed their vulnerability announcements. Stronger incident response plan would aid in handling these kinds of menaces. Hence, applying measures mentioned above, the organizations will be able to prevent the acceleration of turning PoC exploits into weapons and the probability of neutral affecting cyber attacks. 

Reference:

https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/vulnerability-disclosure-is-positive/

https://www.uptycs.com/blog/new-poc-exploit-backdoor-malware

https://www.balbix.com/insights/attack-vectors-and-breach-methods/

https://blog.cloudflare.com/application-security-report-2024-update

‍

Introduction 

The geographical world has physical boundaries, but the digital one has a different architecture and institutions are underprepared when it comes to addressing cybersecurity breaches. Cybercrime, which may lead to economic losses, privacy violations, national security threats and have psycho-social consequences,  is forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029, reaching an estimated cost of at least 6.4 trillion U.S. dollars (Statista). As cyber threats become persistent and ubiquitous, they are becoming a critical governance challenge. Lawmakers around the world need to collaborate on addressing this emerging issue.

Cybersecurity Governance and its Structural Elements

Cybersecurity governance refers to the strategies, policies, laws, and institutional frameworks that guide national and international preparedness and responses to cyber threats to governments, private entities, and individuals. Effective cybersecurity governance ensures that digital risks are managed proactively while balancing security with fundamental rights like privacy and internet freedom. It includes, but is not limited to :

1. Policies and Legal Frameworks: Laws that define the scope of cybercrime, cybersecurity responsibilities, and mechanisms for data protection. Eg: India’s National Cybersecurity Policy (NCSP) of 2013, Information Technology Act, 2000, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, EU’s Cybersecurity Act (2019), Cyber Resilience Act (2024), Cyber Solidarity Act (2025), and NIS2 Directive (2022), South Africa’s Cyber Crimes Act (2021), etc.
2. Regulatory Bodies: Government agencies such as data protection authorities, cybersecurity task forces, and other sector-specific bodies. Eg: India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Europe’s  European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), and others.
3. Public-Private Knowledge Sharing: The sharing of the private sector’s expertise and the government’s resources plays a crucial role in improving enforcement and securing critical infrastructure. This model of collaboration is followed in the EU, Japan, Turkey, and the USA. 
4. Research and Development: Apart from the technical, the cyber domain also includes military, politics, economy, law, culture, society, and other elements. Robust, multi-sectoral research is necessary for formulating international and regional frameworks on cybersecurity. 

Challenges to Cybersecurity Governance 

Governments face several challenges in securing cyberspace and protecting critical assets and individuals despite the growing focus on cybersecurity. This is because so far the focus has been on cybersecurity management, which, considering the scale of attacks in the recent past, is not enough. Stakeholders must start deliberating on the aspect of governance in cyberspace while ensuring that this process is multi-consultative. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). Prominent challenges which need to be addressed are: 

• Dynamic Threat Landscape: The threat landscape in cyberspace is ever-evolving.  Bad actors are constantly coming up with new ways to carry out attacks, using elements of surprise, adaptability, and asymmetry aided by AI and quantum computing. While cybersecurity measures help mitigate risks and minimize damage, they can’t always provide definitive solutions. E.g., the pace of malware development is much faster than that of legal norms, legislation, and security strategies for the protection of information technology (IT). (Efe and Bensghir 2019).
• Regulatory Fragmentation and Compliance Challenges: Different countries, industries, or jurisdictions may enforce varying or conflicting cybersecurity laws and standards, which are still evolving and require rapid upgrades. This makes it harder for businesses to comply with regulations, increases compliance costs, and jeopardizes the security posture of the organization. 
• Trans-National Enforcement Challenges: Cybercriminals operate across jurisdictions, making threat intelligence collection, incident response, evidence-gathering, and prosecution difficult.  Without cross-border agreements between law enforcement agencies and standardized compliance frameworks for organizations, bad actors have an advantage in getting away with attacks. 
• Balancing Security with Digital Rights: Striking a balance between cybersecurity laws and privacy concerns (e.g., surveillance laws vs. data protection) remains a profound challenge,  especially in areas of CSAM prevention and identifying terrorist activities. Without a system of checks and balances, it is difficult to prevent government overreach into domains like journalism, which are necessary for a healthy democracy, and Big Tech’s invasion of user privacy. 

The Road Ahead: Strengthening Cybersecurity Governance 

All domains of human life- economy, culture, politics, and society- occur in digital and cyber environments now. It follows naturally, that governance in the physical world translates into governance in cyberspace. It must be underpinned by features consistent with the principles of openness, transparency, participation, and accountability, while also protecting human rights. In cyberspace, the world is stateless and threats are rapidly evolving with innovations in modern computing. Thus, cybersecurity governance requires a global, multi-sectoral approach utilizing the rules of international law, to chart out problems, and solutions, and carry out detailed risk analyses. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). 

References

• https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1280009/cost-cybercrime-worldwide#statisticContainer
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1365/s43439-021-00045-4#citeas 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-policies#ecl-inpage-cybersecurity-strategy 

‍

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/