#FactCheck - Viral Claim of Highway in J&K Proven Misleading

Introduction

A policy, no matter how artfully conceived, is like a timeless idiom, its truth self-evident, its purpose undeniable, standing in silent witness before those it vows to protect, yet trapped in the stillness of inaction, where every moment of delay erodes the very justice it was meant to serve. This is the case of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which holds in its promise a resolution to all the issues related to data protection and a protection framework at par with GDPR and Global Best Practices. While debates on its substantive efficacy are inevitable, its execution has emerged as a site of acute contention. The roll-out and the decision-making have been making headlines since late July on various fronts. The government is being questioned by industry stakeholders, media and independent analysts on certain grounds, be it “slow policy execution”, “centralisation of power” or “arbitrary amendments”. The act is now entrenched in a never-ending dilemma of competing interests under the DPDP Act.

The change to the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, made possible by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, has become a focal point of debate. This amendment is viewed by some as an attack on weakening the hard-won transparency architecture of Indian democracy by substituting an absolute exemption for personal information for the “public interest override” in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

The Lag Ledger: Tracking the Delays in DPDP Enforcement 

As per a news report of July 28, 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Communications Technology has expressed its concern over the delayed implementation and has urged the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that data privacy is adequately ensured in the nation. In the report submitted to the Lok Sabha on July 24, the committee reviewed the government’s reaction to the previous recommendations and concluded that MeitY had only been able to hold nine consultations and twenty awareness workshops about the Draft DPDP Rules, 2025. In addition, four brainstorming sessions with academic specialists were conducted to examine the needs for research and development. The ministry acknowledges that this is a specialised field that urgently needs industrial involvement. Another news report dated 30th July, 2025, of a day-long consultation held where representatives from civil society groups, campaigns, social movements, senior lawyers, retired judges, journalists, and lawmakers participated on the contentious and chilling effects of the Draft Rules that were notified in January this year. The organisers said in a press statement the DPDP Act may have a negative impact on the freedom of the press and people’s right to information and the activists, journalists, attorneys, political parties, groups and organisations “who collect, analyse, and disseminate critical information as they become ‘data fiduciaries’ under the law.” 

The DPDP Act has thus been caught up in an uncomfortable paradox: praised as a significant legislative achievement for India’s digital future, but caught in a transitional phase between enactment and enforcement, where every day not only postpones protection but also feeds worries about the dwindling amount of room for accountability and transparency. 

The Muzzling Effect: Diluting Whistleblower Protections

The DPDP framework raises a number of subtle but significant issues, one of which is the possibility that it would weaken safeguards for whistleblowers. Critics argue that the Act runs the risk of trapping journalists, activists, and public interest actors who handle sensitive material while exposing wrongdoing because it expands the definition of “personal data” and places strict compliance requirements on “data fiduciaries.”One of the most important checks on state overreach may be silenced if those who speak truth to power are subject to legal retaliation in the absence of clear exclusions of robust public-interest protections.

Noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan has criticised the law for failing to protect whistleblowers, warning that “If someone exposes corruption and names officials, they could now be prosecuted for violating the DPDP Act.”

Consent Management under the DPDP Act

In June 2025, the National e-Governance Division (NeGD) under MeitY released a Business Requirement Document (BRD) for developing consent management systems under the DPDP Act, 2023. The document supports the idea of “Consent Manager”, which acts as a single point of contact between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries. This idea is fundamental to the Act, which is now being operationalised with the help of MeitY’s “Code for Consent: The DPDP Innovation Challenge.” The government has established a collaborative ecosystem to construct consent management systems (CMS) that can serve as a single, standardised interface between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries by choosing six distinct entities, such as Jio Platforms, IDfy, and Zoop. Such a framework could enable people to have meaningful control over their personal data, lessen consent fatigue, and move India’s consent architecture closer to international standards if it is implemented precisely and transparently. 

There is no debate to the importance of this development however, there are various concerns associated with this advancement that must be considered. Although effective, a centralised consent management system may end up being a single point of failure in terms of political overreach and technical cybersecurity flaws. Concerns are raised over the concentration of power over the framing, seeking, and recording of consent when big corporate entities like Jio are chosen as key innovators. Critics contend that the organisations responsible for generating revenue from user data should not be given the responsibility for designing the gatekeeping systems. Furthermore, the CMS can create opaque channels for data access, compromising user autonomy and whistleblower protections, in the absence of strong safeguards, transparency mechanisms and independent oversight. 

Conclusion

Despite being hailed as a turning point in India’s digital governance, the DPDP Act is still stuck in a delayed and unequal transition from promise to reality. Its goals are indisputable, but so are the conundrum it poses to accountability, openness, and civil liberties. Every delay increases public mistrust, and every safeguard that remains unsolved. The true test of a policy intended to safeguard the digital rights of millions lies not in how it was drafted, but in the integrity, pace, and transparency with which it is to be implemented. In the digital age, the true cost of delay is measured not in time, but in trust. CyberPeace calls for transparent, inclusive, and timely execution that balances innovation with the protection of digital rights.

References

• https://www.storyboard18.com/how-it-works/parliamentary-committee-raises-concern-with-meity-over-dpdp-act-implementation-lag-77105.htm 
• https://thewire.in/law/excessive-centralisation-of-power-lawyers-activists-journalists-mps-express-fear-on-dpdp-act
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-jio-idfy-meity-consent-management-systems-dpdpa/ ‍
• https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/centre-refuses-to-amend-dpdp-act-to-protect-journalists-whistleblowers-and-rti-activists

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral video  (archive link) claims General Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), admitted to losing six Air Force jets and 250 soldiers during clashes with Pakistan. Verification revealed the footage is from an IIT Madras speech, with no such statement made. AI detection confirmed parts of the audio were artificially generated.

‍

Claim:

‍

The claim in question is that General Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), admitted to losing six Indian Air Force jets and 250 soldiers during recent clashes with Pakistan.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

Upon conducting a reverse image search on key frames from the video, it was found that the original footage is from IIT Madras, where the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) was delivering a speech. The video is available on the official YouTube channel of ADGPI – Indian Army, published on 9 August 2025, with the description:

“Watch COAS address the faculty and students on ‘Operation Sindoor – A New Chapter in India’s Fight Against Terrorism,’ highlighting it as a calibrated, intelligence-led operation reflecting a doctrinal shift. On the occasion, he also focused on the major strides made in technology absorption and capability development by the Indian Army, while urging young minds to strive for excellence in their future endeavours.”

A review of the full speech revealed no reference to the destruction of six jets or the loss of 250 Army personnel. This indicates that the circulating claim is not supported by the original source and may contribute to the spread of misinformation.

‍

‍

‍

Further using AI Detection tools like Hive Moderation we found that the voice is AI generated in between the lines.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The claim is baseless. The video is a manipulated creation that combines genuine footage of General Dwivedi’s IIT Madras address with AI-generated audio to fabricate a false narrative. No credible source corroborates the alleged military losses.

‍

• Claim: AI-Generated Audio Falsely Claims COAS Admitted to Loss of 6 Jets and 250 Soldiers
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

‍

Introduction

Recently the attackers employed the CVE-2017-0199 vulnerability in Microsoft Office to deliver a fileless form of the Remcos RAT. The Remcos RAT makes the attacker have full control of the systems that have been infected by this malware. This research will give a detailed technical description of the identified vulnerability, attack vector, and tactics together with the practical steps to counter the identified risks.

The Targeted Malware: Remcos RAT

Remcos RAT (Remote Control & Surveillance) is a commercially available remote access tool designed for legitimate administrative use. However, it has been widely adopted by cybercriminals for its stealth and extensive control capabilities, enabling:

• System control and monitoring
• Keylogging
• Data exfiltration
• Execution of arbitrary commands

The fileless variant utilised in this campaign makes detection even more challenging by running entirely in system memory, leaving minimal forensic traces.

Attack Vector: Phishing with Malicious Excel Attachments

The phishing email will be sent which appears as legitimate business communication, such as a purchase order or invoice. This email contains an Excel attachment that is weaponized to exploit the CVE-2017-0199 vulnerability.

Technical Analysis: CVE-2017-0199 Exploitation

Vulnerability Assessment

• CVE-2017-0199 is a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in Microsoft Office which uses Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) objects.
• Affected Components:some text
  • Microsoft Word
  • Microsoft Excel
  • WordPad
• CVSS Score: 7.8 (High Severity)

Mechanism of Exploitation

The vulnerability enables attackers to craft a malicious document when opened, it fetches and executes an external payload via an HTML Application (HTA) file. The execution process occurs without requiring user interaction beyond opening the document.

Detailed Exploitation Steps

1. Phishing Email and Malicious Document some text
   • The email contains an Excel file designed to make use of CVE-2017-0199.
   • When the email gets opened, the document automatically connects to a remote server (e.g., 192.3.220[.]22) to download an HTA file (cookienetbookinetcache.hta).
2. Execution via mshta.exe some text
   • The downloaded HTA file is executed using mshta.exe, a legitimate Windows process for running HTML Applications.
   • This execution is seamless and does not prompt the user, making the attack stealthy.
3. Multi-Layer Obfuscation some text
   • The HTA file is wrapped in several layers of scripting, including: some text
     • JavaScript
     • VBScript
     • PowerShell
   • This obfuscation helps evade static analysis by traditional antivirus solutions.
4. Fileless Payload Deployment some text
   • The downloaded executable leverages process hollowing to inject malicious code into legitimate system processes.
   • The Remcos RAT payload is loaded directly into memory, avoiding the creation of files on disk.

Fileless Malware Techniques

1. Process Hollowing
The attack replaces the memory of a legitimate process (e.g., explorer.exe) with the malicious Remcos RAT payload. This allows the malware to:

• Evade detection by blending into normal system activity.
• Run with the privileges of the hijacked process.

2. Anti-Analysis Techniques

• Anti-Debugging: Detects the presence of debugging tools and terminates malicious processes if found.
• Anti-VM and Sandbox Evasion: Ensures execution only on real systems to avoid detection during security analysis.

3. In-Memory Execution

• By running entirely in system memory, the malware avoids leaving artifacts on the disk, making forensic analysis and detection more challenging.

Capabilities of Remcos RAT

Once deployed, Remcos RAT provides attackers with a comprehensive suite of functionalities, including:

• Data Exfiltration: some text
  • Stealing system information, files, and credentials.
• Remote Execution: some text
  • Running arbitrary commands, scripts, and additional payloads.
• Surveillance: some text
  • Enabling the camera and microphone.
  • Capturing screen activity and clipboard contents.
• System Manipulation: some text
  • Modifying Windows Registry entries.
  • Controlling system services and processes.
  • Disabling user input devices (keyboard and mouse).

Advanced Phishing Techniques in Parallel Campaigns

1. DocuSign Abuse
Attackers exploit legitimate DocuSign APIs to create authentic-looking phishing invoices. These invoices can trick users into authorising payments or signing malicious documents, bypassing traditional email security systems.

2. ZIP File Concatenation
By appending multiple ZIP archives into a single file, attackers exploit inconsistencies in how different tools handle these files. This allows them to embed malware that evades detection by certain archive managers.

Broader Implications of Fileless Malware

Fileless malware like Remcos RAT poses significant challenges:

• Detection Difficulties: Traditional signature-based antivirus systems struggle to detect fileless malware, as there are no static files to scan.
• Forensic Limitations: The lack of disk artifacts complicates post-incident analysis, making it harder to trace the attack's origin and scope.
• Increased Sophistication: These campaigns demonstrate the growing technical prowess of cybercriminals, leveraging legitimate tools and services for malicious purposes.

Mitigation Strategies

1. Patch Management some text
   • It is important to regularly update software to address known vulnerabilities like CVE-2017-0199. Microsoft released a patch for this vulnerability in April 2017.
2. Advanced Email Security some text
   • It is important to implement email filtering solutions that can detect phishing attempts, even those using legitimate services like DocuSign.
3. Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)some text
   • Always use EDR solutions to monitor for suspicious behavior, such as unauthorized use of mshta.exe or process hollowing.
4. User Awareness and Training some text
   • Educate users about phishing techniques and the risks of opening unexpected attachments.
5. Behavioral Analysis some text
   • Deploy security solutions capable of detecting anomalous activity, even if no malicious files are present.

Conclusion

The attack via CVE-2017-0199 further led to the injection of a new fileless variant of Remcos RAT, proving how threats are getting more and more sophisticated. Thanks to the improved obfuscation and the lack of files, the attackers eliminate all traditional antiviral protection and gain full control over the infected computers. It is real and organisations have to make sure that they apply patches on time, that they build better technologies for detection and that the users themselves are more wary of the threats.

References

• Fortinet FortiGuard Labs: Analysis by Xiaopeng Zhang
• Perception Point: Research on ZIP File Concatenation
• Wallarm: DocuSign Phishing Analysis
• Microsoft Security Advisory: CVE-2017-0199

‍