#FactCheck - Old Video Misleadingly Claimed as Footage of Iranian President Before Crash

Introduction

This tale, the Toothbrush Hack, straddles the ordinary and the sophisticated; an unassuming household item became the tool for committing cyber crime. Herein lies the account of how three million electronic toothbrushes turned into the unwitting infantry in a cyber skirmish—a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) assault that flirted with the thin line that bridges the real and the outlandish.

In January, within the  Swiss borders, a story began circulating—first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. A legion of cybercriminals, with honed digital acumen, had planted malware on some three million electric toothbrushes. These devices, mere slivers of plastic and circuitry, became agents of chaos, converging their electronic requests upon the servers of an undisclosed Swiss firm, hurling that digital domain into digital blackout for several hours and wreaking an economic turmoil calculated in seven-figure sums.

The entire Incident

It was claimed that three million electric toothbrushes were allegedly used for a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. The article claimed that cybercriminals installed malware on the toothbrushes and used them to access a Swiss company's website, causing the site to go offline and causing significant financial loss. However, cybersecurity experts have questioned the veracity of the story, with some describing it as "total bollocks" and others pointing out that smart electric toothbrushes are connected to smartphones and tablets via Bluetooth, making it impossible for them to launch DDoS attacks over the web. Fortinet clarified that the topic of toothbrushes being used for DDoS attacks was presented as an illustration of a given type of attack and that no IoT botnets have been observed targeting toothbrushes or similar embedded devices.

The Tech Dilemma - IOT Hack

Imagine the juxtaposition of this narrative against our common expectations of technology: 'This example, which could have been from a cyber thriller, did indeed occur,' asserted the narratives that wafted through the press and social media. The story radiated outward with urgency, painting the image of IoT devices turned to evil tools of digital unrest. It was disseminated with such velocity that face value became an accepted currency amid news cycles. And yet, skepticism took root in the fertile minds of those who dwell in the domains of cyber guardianship.

Several cyber security and IOT experts, postulated that the information from Fortinet had been contorted by the wrench of misinterpretation. They and their ilk highlighted a critical flaw: smart electric toothbrushes are bound to their smartphone or tablet counterparts by the tethers of Bluetooth, not the internet, stripping them of any innate ability to conduct DDoS or any other type of cyber attack directly.

With this unraveling of an incident fit for our cyber age, we are presented with a sobering reminder of the threat spectrum that burgeons as the tendrils of the Internet of Things (IoT) insinuate themselves into our everyday fabrics. Innocuous devices, previously deemed immune to the internet's shadow, now stand revealed as potential conduits for cyber evil. The layers of impact are profound, touching the private spheres of individuals, the underpinning frameworks of national security, and the sinews that clutch at our economic realities. The viral incident was a misinformation. 

IOT Weakness

IoT devices bear inherent weaknesses for twin reasons: the oft-overlooked element of security and the stark absence of a means to enact those security measures. Ponder this problem Is there a pathway to traverse the security settings of an electric toothbrush? Or to install antivirus measures within the cooling confines of a refrigerator? The answers point to an unsettling simplicity—you cannot.

How to Protect 

Vigilance - What then might be the protocol to safeguard our increasingly digital space? It begins with vigilance, the cornerstone of digital self-defense. Ensure the automatic updating of all IoT devices when they beckon with the promise of a new security patch. 

Self Awareness - Avoid the temptation of public USB charging stations, which, while offering electronic succor to your devices, could also stand as the Trojan horses for digital pathogens. Be attuned to signs of unusual power depletion in your gadgets, for it may well serve as the harbinger of clandestine malware. Navigate the currents of public Wi-Fi with utmost care, as they are as fertile for data interception as they are convenient for your connectivity needs.

Use of Firewall - A firewall can prove stalwart against the predators of the internet interlopers. Your smart appliances, from the banality of a kitchen toaster to the novelty of an internet-enabled toilet, if shielded by this barrier, remain untouched, and by extension, uncompromised. And let us not dismiss this notion with frivolity, for the prospect of a malware-compromised toilet or any such smart device leaves a most distasteful specter.

Limit the use of IOT -  Additionally, and this is conveyed with the gravity warranted by our current digital era, resist the seduction of IoT devices whose utility does not outweigh their inherent risks. A smart television may indeed be vital for the streaming aficionado amongst us, yet can we genuinely assert the need for a connected laundry machine, an iron, or indeed, a toothbrush? Here, prudence is a virtue; exercise it with judicious restraint.

Conclusion 

As we step forward into an era where connectivity has shifted from a mere luxury to an omnipresent standard, we must adopt vigilance and digital hygiene practices with the same fervour as those for our corporal well-being. Let the toothbrush hack not simply be a tale of caution, consigned to the annals of internet folklore, but a fable that imbues us with the recognition of our role in maintaining discipline in a realm where even the most benign objects might be mustered into service by a cyberspace adversary.

References 

• https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/no-3-million-electric-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack/ 
• https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-home/3-million-smart-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack-but-they-could-have-been/
• https://www.securityweek.com/3-million-toothbrushes-abused-for-ddos-attacks-real-or-not/

https://www.cxodigitalpulse.com/hackers-use-electric-toothbrushes-in-massive-cyber-attack-results-in-huge-financial-loss/

2025 is knocking firmly at our door and we have promises to make and resolutions to keep. Time you make your list for the New Year and check it twice.

• Lifestyle targets 🡪 Check
• Family targets 🡪 Check
• Social targets 🡪 Check

Umm, so far so good, but what about your cybersecurity targets for the year? Hey, you look confused and concerned. Wait a minute, you do not have one, do you?

I get it. Though the digital world still puzzles, and sometimes outright scares us, we still are not in the ‘Take-Charge-Of-Your-Digital-Safety Mode. We prefer to depend on whatever software security we are using and keep our fingers crossed that the bad guys (read threat actors) do not find us.

Let me illustrate why cybersecurity should be one of your top priorities. You know that stress is a major threat to our continued good health, right? However, if your devices, social media accounts, office e-mail or network, or God forbid, bank accounts become compromised, would that not cause stress? Think about it and the probable repercussions and you will comprehend why I am harping on prioritising security.

Fret not. We will keep it brief as we well know you have 101 things to do in the next few days leading up to 01/01/2025. Just add cyber health to the list and put in motion the following:

• Install and activate comprehensive security software on ALL internet-enabled devices you have at home. Yes, including your smartphones.
• Set yourself a date to change and create separate unique passwords for all accounts. Or use the password manager that comes with all reputed security software to make life simpler.
• Keep home Wi-Fi turned off at night
• Do not set social media accounts to auto-download photos/documents
• Activate parental controls on all the devices used by your children to monitor and mentor them. But keep them apprised.
• Do not blindly trust anyone or anything online – this includes videos, speeches, emails, voice calls, and video calls. Be aware of fakes.
• Be aware of the latest threats and talk about unsafe cyber practices and behaviour often at home.

Short and sweet, as promised.

We will be back, with more tips, and answers to your queries. Drop us a line anytime, and we will be happy to resolve your doubts.

Ciao!

‍

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍