#FactCheck - Indian Men’s 4x400m Relay Team’s Record-Breaking Achievement in August 2023 Misrepresented as Recent Event

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Introduction

MSMEs, being the cornerstone of the Indian economy, are one of the most vulnerable targets in cyberspace and no enterprise is too small to be a target for malicious actors. MSMEs hardly ever perform a cyber-risk assessment, but when they do, they may run into a number of internal problems, such as cyberattacks brought on by inadequate networking security, online fraud, ransomware assaults, etc.  Tackling cyber threats in MSMEs is critical mainly because of their high level of dependance on digital technologies and the growing sophistication of cyber attacks. Protecting them from cyber threats is essential, as a security breach can have devastating consequences, including financial loss, reputational damage, and operational disruptions.

Key Cyber Threats that MSMEs are facing

MSMEs are most vulnerable to are phishing attacks, ransomware, malware and viruses, insider threats, social engineering attacks, supply chain attacks, credential stuffing and brute force attacks and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) Attacks. Some of these attacks are described as under-

• Insider threats arise from employees or contractors who intentionally or unintentionally compromise security. It involves data theft, misuse of access privileges, or accidental data exposure. 
• Social engineering attacks involve manipulating individuals into divulging confidential information or performing actions that compromise security by pretexting, baiting, and impersonation. 
• Supply chain attacks exploit the trust in relationships between businesses and their suppliers and introduce malware, compromise data integrity, and disrupt operations.
• Credential stuffing and brute force attacks give unauthorized access to accounts and systems, leading to data breaches and financial losses.

Challenges Faced by MSMEs in Cybersecurity

The challenges faced  by MSMEs in cyber security are mainly due to limited resources and budget constraints which leads to other issues such as a lack of specialized expertise as MSMEs often lack the IT support of cyber security experts. Awareness and training are needed to mitigate poor understanding of cyber threats and their complexity in nature. Vulnerabilities in the supply chain are present as they rely on third-party vendors and partners often, introducing potential supply chain vulnerabilities. Regulatory compliance is often complex and is taken seriously only when an issue crops up but it needs special attention especially with the DPDP Act coming in. The lack of an incident response plan leads to delayed and inadequate responses to cyber incidents, increasing the impact of breaches.

Best Practices for Tackling Cyber Threats for MSMEs

To effectively tackle cyber threats, MSMEs should adopt a comprehensive approach such as:

• Implementing and enforcing strong access controls by using MFA or 2FA and password policies. Limiting employee access as role based and updating the same as and when needed.
• Regularly apply security patches and use automated patch management solutions to prevent exploitation of known vulnerabilities.
• Conduct employee training and awareness programs and promote a security-first approach for the employees and assessing employee readiness to identify improvement areas.
• Implement network security measures by using firewalls and intrusion detection systems. Using secure Wi-Fi networks via strong encryptions and changing default credentials for the router are recommended, as is segmenting networks to limit lateral movement within the network in case of a breach.
• Regular data backup ensures that in case of an attack, data loss can be recovered and made available in secure offsite locations to protect it from unauthorized access. 
• Developing an incident response plan that outlines the roles, responsibilities and procedure for responding to cyber incidents with regular drills to ensure readiness and clear communication protocols for incident reporting to regulators, stakeholders and customers.
• Implement endpoint security solutions using antivirus and anti-malware softwares. Devices should be against unauthorized access and implement mobile device management solutions enforcing security policies on employee-owned devices used for work purposes.
• Cyber insurance coverage will help in transferring financial risks in case of cyber incidents. It should have comprehensive coverage including business interruptions, data restoration, legal liabilities and incident response costs.

Recommended Cybersecurity Solutions Tailored for MSMEs

1. A Managed Security Service Provider offers outsourced cybersecurity services, including threat monitoring, incident response, and vulnerability management that may be lacking in-house.
2. Cloud-Based Security Solutions such as firewall as a service and Security Information and Event Management , provide scalable and cost-effective protection for MSMEs.
3. Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Tools detect and respond to threats on endpoints, providing real-time visibility into potential threats and automating incident response actions.
4. Security Awareness Training Platforms deliver interactive training sessions and simulations to educate employees about cybersecurity threats and best practices.

Conclusion

Addressing cyber threats in MSMEs requires a proactive and multi-layered approach that encompasses technical solutions, employee training, and strategic planning. By implementing best practices and leveraging cybersecurity solutions tailored to their specific needs, MSMEs can significantly enhance their resilience against cyber threats. As cyber threats continue to evolve, staying informed about the latest trends and adopting a culture of security awareness will be essential for MSMEs to protect their assets, reputation, and bottom line.

References:

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/security-tech/security/cyber-security-pitfalls-and-how-negligence-can-be-expensive-for-msmes/articleshow/99508822.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0112/3-ways-cyber-crime-impacts-business.aspx 
• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-msme-tech-cisco-launches-new-tool-for-smbs-to-assess-their-cybersecurity-readiness-2538348/ 
• https://www.cloverinfotech.com/blog/small-businesses-big-problems-are-cyber-attacks-crushing-indias-msmes/ 

‍

Introduction

‍

Recently, in April 2025, security researchers at Oligo Security exposed a substantial and wide-ranging threat impacting Apple's AirPlay protocol and its use via third-party Software Development Kit (SDK). According to the research, the recently discovered set of vulnerabilities titled "AirBorne" had the potential to enable remote code execution, escape permissions, and leak private data across many different Apple and third-party AirPlay-compatible devices. With well over 2.35 billion active Apple devices globally and tens of millions of third-party products that incorporate the AirPlay SDK, the scope of the problem is enormous. Those wireless-based vulnerabilities pose not only a technical threat but also increasingly an enterprise- and consumer-level security concern.

‍

Understanding AirBorne: What’s at Stake?

‍

AirBorne is the title given to a set of 23 vulnerabilities identified in the AirPlay communication protocol and its related SDK utilised by third-party vendors. Seventeen have been given official CVE designations. The most severe among them permit Remote Code Execution (RCE) with zero or limited user interaction. This provides hackers the ability to penetrate home networks, business environments, and even cars with CarPlay technology onboard.

‍

Types of Vulnerabilities Identified

AirBorne vulnerabilities support a range of attack types, including:

‍

• Zero-Click and One-Click RCE
• Access Control List (ACL) bypass
• User interaction bypass
• Local arbitrary file read
• Sensitive data disclosure
• Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks
• Denial of Service (DoS)

‍

Each vulnerability can be used individually or chained together to escalate access and broaden the attack surface.

‍

Remote Code Execution (RCE): Key Attack Scenarios

‍

‍

1. MacOS – Zero-Click RCE (CVE-2025-24252 & CVE-2025-24206) These weaknesses enable attackers to run code on a MacOS system without any user action, as long as the AirPlay receiver is enabled and configured to accept connections from anyone on the same network. The threat of wormable malware propagating via corporate or public Wi-Fi networks is especially concerning.
2. MacOS – One-Click RCE (CVE-2025-24271 & CVE-2025-24137) If AirPlay is set to "Current User," attackers can exploit these CVEs to deploy malicious code with one click by the user. This raises the level of threat in shared office or home networks.
3. AirPlay SDK Devices – Zero-Click RCE (CVE-2025-24132) Third-party speakers and receivers through the AirPlay SDK are particularly susceptible, where exploitation requires no user intervention. Upon compromise, the attackers have the potential to play unauthorised media, turn microphones on, or monitor intimate spaces.
4. CarPlay Devices – RCE Over Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or USB CVE-2025-24132 also affects CarPlay-enabled systems. Under certain circumstances, the perpetrators around can take advantage of predictable Wi-Fi credentials, intercept Bluetooth PINs, or utilise USB connections to take over dashboard features, which may distract drivers or listen in on in-car conversations.

‍

Other Exploits Beyond RCE

‍

AirBorne also opens the door for:

‍

• Sensitive Information Disclosure: Exposing private logs or user metadata over local networks (CVE-2025-24270).
• Local Arbitrary File Access: Letting attackers read restricted files on a device (CVE-2025-24270 group).
• DoS Attacks: Exploiting NULL pointer dereferences or misformatted data to crash processes like the AirPlay receiver or WindowServer, forcing user logouts or system instability (CVE-2025-24129, CVE-2025-24177, etc.).

‍

How the Attack Works: A Technical Breakdown

‍

AirPlay sends on port 7000 via HTTP and RTSP, typically encoded in Apple's own plist (property list) form. Exploits result from incorrect treatment of these plists, especially when skipping type checking or assuming invalid data will be valid. For instance, CVE-2025-24129 illustrates how a broken plist can produce type confusion to crash or execute code based on configuration.

A hacker must be within the same Wi-Fi network as the targeted device. This connection might be through a hacked laptop, public wireless with shared access, or an insecure corporate connection. Once in proximity, the hacker has the ability to use AirBorne bugs to hijack AirPlay-enabled devices. There, bad code can be released to spy, gain long-term network access, or spread control to other devices on the network, perhaps creating a botnet or stealing critical data.

‍

The Espionage Angle

‍

Most third-party AirPlay-compatible devices, including smart speakers, contain built-in microphones. In theory, that leaves the door open for such devices to become eavesdropping tools. While Oligo did not show a functional exploit for the purposes of espionage, the risk suggests the gravity of the situation.

‍

The CarPlay Risk Factor

‍

Besides smart home appliances, vulnerabilities in AirBorne have also been found for Apple CarPlay by Oligo. Those vulnerabilities, when exploited, may enable attackers to take over an automobile's entertainment system. Fortunately, the attacks would need pairing directly through USB or Bluetooth and are much less practical. Even so, it illustrates how networks of connected components remain at risk in various situations, ranging from residences to automobiles.

‍

How to Protect Yourself and Your Organisation

‍

1. Immediate Actions:

• Update Devices: Ensure all Apple devices and third-party gadgets are upgraded to the latest software version.
• Disable AirPlay Receiver: If AirPlay is not in use, disable it in system settings.
• Restrict AirPlay Access: Use firewalls to block port 7000 from untrusted IPs.
• Set AirPlay to “Current User” to limit network-based attack.

2. Organisational Recommendations:

• Communicate the patch urgency to employees and stakeholders.
• Inventory all AirPlay-enabled hardware, including in meeting rooms and vehicles.
• Isolate vulnerable devices on segmented networks until updated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AirBorne vulnerabilities illustrate that even mature systems such as Apple's are not immune from foundational security weaknesses. The extensive deployment of AirPlay across devices, industries, and ecosystems makes these vulnerabilities a systemic threat. Oligo's discovery has served to catalyse immediate response from Apple, but since third-party devices remain vulnerable, responsibility falls to users and organisations to install patches, implement robust configurations, and compartmentalise possible attack surfaces. Effective proactive cybersecurity hygiene, network segmentation, and timely patches are the strongest defences to avoid these kinds of wormable, scalable attacks from becoming large-scale breaches.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.oligo.security/blog/airborne
• https://www.wired.com/story/airborne-airplay-flaws/
• https://thehackernews.com/2025/05/wormable-airplay-flaws-enable-zero.html
• https://www.securityweek.com/airplay-vulnerabilities-expose-apple-devices-to-zero-click-takeover/
• https://www.pcmag.com/news/airborne-flaw-exposes-airplay-devices-to-hacking-how-to-protect-yourself
• https://cyberguy.com/security/hackers-breaking-into-apple-devices-through-airplay/

‍