#FactCheck - Viral Video of Man ‘Running on Water’ Found to Be AI-Generated
Executive Summary:
A video is being shared on social media showing a man running rapidly in a river with water bottles tied to both his feet. Users are circulating the video claiming that the man is attempting to run on water using the support of the bottles. CyberPeace’s research found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video being shared on social media is not real but has been generated using artificial intelligence (AI).
Claim :
The claim was shared by a Facebook user on February 5, 2026, who wrote that a man was running on water using water bottles tied to his feet, calling it a unique attempt and questioning whether humans can run on water. Links to the post, its archived version, and screenshots are provided below.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords on Google but did not find any credible media reports supporting the incident. A closer examination of the viral video revealed several visual irregularities, raising suspicion that it may have been AI-generated. The video was then scanned using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. According to the tool’s results, the video is 99 percent likely to be AI-generated.
Conclusion:
Our research confirms that the viral video does not depict a real incident and has been falsely shared as a genuine attempt to run on water.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In today’s digital era, warfare is being redefined. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently stated that “we are in the age of Grey Zone and hybrid warfare where cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and economic warfare have become tools to achieve politico-military aims without a single shot being fired.” The crippling cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections, and the ransomware strike on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States in 2021 all demonstrate how states are now using cyberspace to achieve strategic goals while carefully circumventing the threshold of open war.
Legal Complexities: Attribution, Response, and Accountability
Grey zone warfare challenges the traditional notions of security and international conventions on peace due to inherent challenges such as :
- Attribution
The first challenge in cyber warfare is determining who is responsible. Threat actors hide behind rented botnets, fake IP addresses, and servers scattered across the globe. Investigators can follow digital trails, but those trails often point to machines, not people. That makes attribution more of an educated guess than a certainty. A wrong guess could lead to misattribution of blame, which could beget a diplomatic crisis, or worse, a military one. - Proportional Response
Even if attribution is clear, designing a response can be a challenge. International law does give room for countermeasures if they are both ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. But defining these qualifiers can be a long-drawn, contested process. Effectively, governments employ softer measures such as protests or sanctions, tighten their cyber defences or, in extreme cases, strike back digitally. - Accountability
States can be held responsible for waging cyber attacks under the UN’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility. But these are non-binding and enforcement depends on collective pressure, which can be slow and inconsistent. In cyberspace, accountability often ends up being more symbolic than real, leaving plenty of room for repeat offences.
International and Indian Legal Frameworks
Cyber law is a step behind cyber warfare since existing international frameworks are often inadequate. For example, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the closest thing we have to a rulebook for cyber conflict, is just a set of guidelines. It says that if a cyber operation can be tied to a state, even through hired hackers or proxies, then that state can be held responsible. But attribution is a major challenge. Similarly, the United Nations has tried to build order through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that promotes norms like “don’t attack. However, these norms are not binding, effectively leaving practice to diplomacy and trust.
India is susceptible to routine attacks from hostile actors, but does not yet have a dedicated cyber warfare law. While Section 66F of the IT ACT, 2000, talks about cyber terrorism, and Section 75 lets Indian courts examine crimes committed abroad if they impact India, grey-zone tactics like fake news campaigns, election meddling, and influence operations fall into a legal vacuum.
Way Forward
- Strengthen International Cooperation
Frameworks like the Tallinn Manual 2.0 can form the basis for future treaties. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries are essential to ensure accountability and cooperation in tackling grey zone activities. - Develop Grey Zone Legislation
India currently relies on the IT Act, 2000, but this law needs expansion to specifically cover grey zone tactics such as election interference, propaganda, and large-scale disinformation campaigns. - Establish Active Monitoring Systems
India must create robust early detection systems to identify grey zone operations in cyberspace. Agencies can coordinate with social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube, which are often exploited for propaganda and disinformation, to improve monitoring frameworks. - Dedicated Theatre Commands for Cyber Operations
Along with the existing Defence Cyber Agency, India should consider specialised theatre commands for grey zone and cyber warfare. This would optimise resources, enhance coordination, and ensure unified command in dealing with hybrid threats.
Conclusion
Grey zone warfare in cyberspace is no longer an optional tactic used by threat actors but a routine activity. India lacks the early detection systems, robust infrastructure, and strong cyber laws to counter grey-zone warfare. To counter this, India needs sharper attribution tools for early detection and must actively push for stronger international rules in this global landscape. More importantly, instead of merely blaming without clear plans, India should focus on preparing for solid retaliation strategies. By doing so, India can also learn to use cyberspace strategically to achieve politico-military aims without firing a single shot.
References
- Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Michael N. Schmitt)
- UN Document on International Law in Cyberspace (UN Digital Library)
- NATO Cyber Defence Policy
- Texas Law Review: State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions
- Deccan Herald: Defence Minister on Grey Zone Warfare
- VisionIAS: Grey Zone Warfare
- Sachin Tiwari, The Reality of Cyber Operations in the Grey Zone
Executive Summary:
A video is going viral on social media linking it to the ongoing conflict between the US-Israel and Iran. The clip shows explosions on buildings and is being shared with the claim that it depicts an attack on Israel. It is further claimed that Iran targeted a nuclear site located near the sea in Israel, and this video shows that attack. However, an research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be false. The video is not from a real incident but has been created using AI.
Claim:
On social media platform X, a user shared the viral video on March 8, 2026, with the caption: “Iran attacked an Israeli nuclear site located near the sea.”
Fact Check:
To verify the viral claim, we searched relevant keywords on Google but found no credible news reports supporting it.On closely examining the video, we observed several technical inconsistencies. The person seen in the video appears robotic, raising suspicion that the content may be AI-generated. To confirm this, we analyzed the video using AI detection tools. The tool Hive Moderation indicated that the video is approximately 97.5 percent likely to be generated using artificial intelligence.
We also used the AI detection tool Matrix.Tencent. The results suggested that the video is likely AI-generated, with around a 77 percent probability.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video claiming to show an Iranian attack on Israel is AI-generated and not related to any real incident.
Introduction:
Apple is known for its unique innovations and designs. Apple, with the introduction of the iPhone 15 series, now will come up with the USB-C by complying with European Union(EU) regulations. The standard has been set by the European Union’s rule for all mobile devices. The new iPhone will now come up with USB-C. However there is a little caveat here, you will be able to use any USB-C cable to charge or transfer from your iPhone. European Union approved new rules to make it compulsory for tech companies to ensure a universal charging port is introduced for electronic gadgets like mobile phones, tablets, cameras, e-readers, earbuds and other devices by the end of next year.
The new iPhone will now come up with USB-C. However, Apple being Apple, will limit third-party USB-C cables. This means Apple-owned MFI-certified cable will have an optimised charging speed and a faster data transfer speed. MFI stands for 'Made for iPhone/iPad' and is a quality mark or testing program from Apple for Lightning cables and other products. The MFI-certified product ensures safety and improved performance.
European Union's regulations on common charging port:
The new iPhone will have a type-c USB port. EU rules have made it mandatory that all phones and laptops need to have one USB-C charging port. IPhone will be switching to USB-C from the lightning port. European Union's mandate for all mobile device makers to adopt this technology. EU has set a deadline for all new phones to use USB-C for wired charging by the end of 2024. These EU rules will be applicable to all devices, such as tablets, digital cameras, headphones, handheld video game consoles, etc. And will apply to devices that offer wired charging. The EU rules require that phone manufacturers adopt a common charging connection. The mobile manufacturer or relevant industry has to comply with these rules by the end of 2024. The rules are enacted with the intent to save consumers money and cut waste. EU stated that these rules will save consumers from unnecessary charger purchases and tonnes of cut waste per year. With the implementation of these rules, the phone manufacturers have to comply with it, and customers will be able to use a single charger for their different devices. It will strengthen the speed of data transfer in new iPhone models. The iPhone will also be compatible with chargers used by non-apple users, i.e. USB-C.
Indian Standards on USB-C Type Charging Ports in India
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has also issued standards for USB-C-type chargers. The standards aim to provide a solution of a common charger for all different charging devices. Consumers will not need to purchase multiple chargers for their different devices, ultimately leading to a reduction in the number of chargers per consumer. This would contribute to the Government of India's goal of reducing e-waste and moving toward sustainable development.
Conclusion:
New EU rules require all mobile phone devices, including iPhones, to have a USB-C connector for their charging ports. Notably, now you can see the USB-C port on the upcoming iPhone 15. These rules will enable the customers to use a single charger for their different Apple devices, such as iPads, Macs and iPhones. Talking about the applicability of these rules, the EU common-charger rule will cover small and medium-sized portable electronics, which will include mobile phones, tablets, e-readers, mice and keyboards, digital cameras, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, etc. Such devices are mandated to have USB-C charging ports if they offer the wired charging option. Laptops will also be covered under these rules, but they are given more time to adopt the changes and abide by these rules. Overall, this step will help in reducing e-waste and moving toward sustainable development.
References:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66708571
