#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Cristiano Ronaldo Chanting “Free Palestine

Introduction

Cybercrimes have been traversing peripheries and growing at a fast pace. Cybercrime is known to be an offensive action that either targets or operates through a computer, a computer network or a networked device, according to Kaspersky.  In the “Era of globalisation” and a “Digitally coalesced world”, there has been an increase in International cybercrime. Cybercrime could be for personal or political objectives. Nevertheless, Cybercrime aims to sabotage networks for motives other than gain and be carried out either by organisations or individuals. Some of the cybercriminals have no national boundaries and are considered a global threat. They are likewise inordinately technically adept and operate avant-garde strategies. 

The 2023 Global Risk Report points to exacerbating geopolitical apprehensions that have increased the advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are evolving globally as they are ubiquitous. Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank and former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2020 cautioned that a cyber attack could lead to a severe economic predicament. Contemporary technologies and hazardous players have grown at an exceptional gait over the last few decades. Also, cybercrime has heightened on the agenda of nation-states, establishments and global organisations, as per the World Economic Forum (WEF). 

The Role of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee 

In two shakes, the United Nations (UN) has a major initiative to develop a new and more inclusive approach to addressing cybercrime and is presently negotiating a new convention on cybercrime. The following convention seeks to enhance global collaboration in the combat against cybercrime. The UN has a central initiative to develop a unique and more inclusive strategy for addressing cybercrime. The UN passed resolution 74/247, which designated an open-ended ad hoc committee (AHC) in December 2019 entrusted with setting a broad global convention on countering the use of information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for illicit pursuits. 

The Cybercrime treaty, if adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) would be the foremost imperative UN mechanism on a cyber point. The treaty could further become a crucial international legal framework for global collaboration on arraigning cyber criminals, precluding and investigating cybercrime. There have correspondingly been numerous other national and international measures to counter the criminal use of ICTs. However, the UN treaty is intended to tackle cybercrime and enhance partnership and coordination between states. The negotiations of the Ad Hoc Committee with the member states will be completed by early 2024 to further adopt the treaty during the UNGA in September 2024.

However, the following treaty is said to be complex. Some countries endorse a treaty that criminalises cyber-dependent offences and a comprehensive spectrum of cyber-enabled crimes.  The proposals of Russia, Belarus, China, Nicaragua and Cuba have included highly controversial recommendations. Nevertheless, India has backed for criminalising crimes associated with ‘cyber terrorism’ and the suggestions of India to the UN Ad Hoc committee are in string with its regulatory strategy in the country. Similarly, the US, Japan, the UK, European Union (EU) member states and Australia want to include core cyber-dependent crimes. 

Nonetheless, though a new treaty could become a practical instrument in the international step against cybercrime, it must conform to existing global agencies and networks that occupy similar areas. This convention will further supplement the "Budapest Cybercrime Convention" on cybercrime that materialised in the 1990s and was signed in Budapest in the year 2001.

Conclusion

According to Cyber Security Ventures, global cybercrime is expected to increase by 15 per cent per year over the next five years, reaching USD 10.5 trillion annually by 2025, up from USD 3 trillion in 2015. The UN cybercrime convention aims to be more global. That being the case, next-generation tools should have state-of-the-art technology to deal with new cyber crimes and cyber warfare. The global crevasse in nation-states due to cybercrime is beyond calculation. It could lead to a great cataclysm in the global economy and threaten the political interest of the countries on that account. It is crucial for global governments and international organisations. It is necessary to strengthen the collaboration between establishments (public and private) and law enforcement mechanisms. An “appropriately designed policy” is henceforward the need of the hour.

References

• https://www.kaspersky.co.in/resource-center/threats/what-is-cybercrime
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/
• https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cybercrime
• https://www.bizzbuzz.news/bizz-talk/ransomware-attacks-on-startups-msmes-on-the-rise-in-india-cyberpeace-foundation-1261320
• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/digital-transformation-cyberpeace-foundation-receives-4-million-google-org-grant-3282515/
• https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/08/what-un-cybercrime-treaty-and-why-does-it-matter
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/global-rules-crack-down-cybercrime/
• https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2023/
• https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/03/global-cyber-threat-to-financial-systems-maurer.htm
• https://www.eff.org/issues/un-cybercrime-treaty#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20currently,of%20billions%20of%20people%20worldwide.
• https://cybersecurityventures.com/hackerpocalypse-cybercrime-report-2016/
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/the-budapest-convention
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/counter-use-of-technology-for-cybercrime-india-tells-un-ad-hoc-group/articleshow/92237908.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
• https://consultation.dpmc.govt.nz/un-cybercrime-convention/principlesandobjectives/supporting_documents/Background.pdf
• https://unric.org/en/a-un-treaty-on-cybercrime-en-route/

‍

Introduction

Social media platforms have begun to shape the public understanding of history in today’s digital landscape. You may have encountered videos, images, and posts that claim to reveal an untold story about our past. For example, you might have seen a post on your feed that has a painted or black and white image of a princess and labelled as "the most beautiful princess of Rajasthan who fought countless wars but has been erased from history.” Such emotionally charged narratives spread quickly, without any academic scrutiny or citation. Unfortunately, the originator believes it to be true. 

Such unverified content may look harmless. But it profoundly contributes to the systematic distortion of historical information. Such misinformation reoccurs on feeds and becomes embedded in popular memory. It misguides the public discourse and undermines the scholarly research on the relevant topic.  Sometimes, it also contributes to communal outrage and social tensions. It is time to recognise that protecting the integrity of our cultural and historical narratives is not only an academic concern but a legal and institutional responsibility. This is where the role of the Ministry of Culture becomes critical.

‍

Pseudohistorical News Information in India

Fake news and misinformation are frequently disseminated via images, pictures, and videos on various messaging applications, which is referred to as “WhatsApp University” in a derogatory way. WhatsApp has become India’s favourite method of communication, while users have to stay very conscious about what they are consuming from forwarded messages. Academic historians strive to understand the past in its context to differentiate it from the present, whereas pseudo-historians try to manipulate history to satisfy their political agendas. Unfortunately, this wave of pseudo-history is expanding rapidly, with platforms like 'WhatsApp University' playing a significant role in amplifying its spread. This has led to an increase in fake historical news and paid journalism. Unlike pseudo-history, academic history is created by professional historians in academic contexts, adhering to strict disciplinary guidelines, including peer review and expert examination of justifications, assertions, and publications.

‍

How to Identify Pseudo-Historic Misinformation 

1. Lack of Credible Sources: There is a lack of reliable primary and secondary sources. Instead, pseudohistorical works depend on hearsay and unreliable eyewitness accounts.

2. Selective Use of Evidence: Misinformative posts portray only those facts that support their argument and minimise the facts which is contradictory to their assertions.  

3. Incorporation of Conspiracy Theories: They often include conspiracy theories, which postulate secret groups, repressed knowledge. They might mention that evil powers influenced the historical events. Such hypotheses frequently lack any supporting data. 

4. Extravagant Claims: Pseudo-historic tales sometimes present unbelievable assertions about historic persons or events. 

5. Lack of Peer Review: Such work is generally never published on authentic academic platforms. You would not find them on platforms like LinkedIn, but on platforms like Instagram and Facebook, as they do not pitch for academic publications. Authentic historical research is examined by subject-matter authorities. 

6. Neglect of Established Historiographical Methods: Such posts lack knowledge of a recognised methodology and procedures, like the critical study of sources.

7. Ideologically Driven Narratives: Political, communal, ideological, and personal opinions are prioritised in such posts. The author has a prior goal, instead of finding the truth.

8. Exploitation of Gaps in the Historical Record: Pseudo-historians often use missing or unclear parts of history to suggest that regular historians are hiding important secrets. They make the story sound more mysterious than it is. 

9. Rejection of Scholarly Consensus: Pseudo-historians often reject the views of experts and historians, choosing instead to believe and promote their strange ideas.

10. Emphasis on Sensationalism: Pseudo-historical works may put more emphasis on sensationalism than academic rigour to pique public interest rather than offer a fair and thorough account of the history.

‍

Legal and Institutional Responsibility

Public opinion is the heart of democracy. It should not be affected by any misinformation or disinformation. Vested interests cannot be allowed to sabotage this public opinion. Specifically, when it concerns academia, it cannot be shared unverified without any fact-checking. Such unverified claims can be called out, and action can be taken only if the authorities take over the charge. In India, the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) regulates the historical academia. As per the official website, their stated aim is to “take all such measures as may be found necessary from time to time to promote historical research and its utilisation in the country,”. However, it is now essential to modernise the functioning of the ICHR to meet the demands of the digital era. Concerned authorities can run campaigns and awareness programmes to question the validity and research of such misinformative posts. Just as there are fact-checking mechanisms for news, there must also be an institutional push to fact-check and regulate historical content online. The following measures can be taken by authorities to strike down such misinformation online: 

1. Launch a nationwide awareness campaign about historical misinformation.
2. Work with scholars, historians, and digital platforms to promote verified content.
3. Encourage social media platforms to introduce fact-check labels for historical posts.
4. Consider legal frameworks that penalise the deliberate spread of false historical narratives.

History is part of our national heritage, and preserving its accuracy is a matter of public interest. Misinformation and pseudo-history are a combination that misleads the public and weakens the foundation of shared cultural identity. In this digital era, false narratives spread rapidly, and it is important to promote critical thinking, encourage responsible academic work, and ensure that the public has access to accurate and well-researched historical information. Protecting the integrity of history is not just the work of historians — it is a collective responsibility that serves the future of our democracy.

‍

References:

1. https://kuey.net/index.php/kuey/article/view/4091 
2. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/social-media-and-the-menace-of-false-information 

‍

Introduction

In the sprawling online world, trusted relationships are frequently taken advantage of by cybercriminals seeking to penetrate guarded systems. The Watering Hole Attack is one advanced method, which focuses on a user’s ecosystem by compromising the genuine sites they often use. This attack method is different from phishing or direct attacks as it quietly exploits the everyday browsing of the target to serve malicious content. The quiet and exact nature of watering hole attacks makes them prevalent amongst Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups, especially in conjunction with state-sponsored cyber-espionage operations.

‍

What Qualifies as a Watering Hole Attack?  

A Watering Hole Attack targets and infects a trusted website. The targeted website is one that is used by a particular organization or community, such as a specific industry sector. This type of cyberattack is analogous to the method of attack used by animals and predators waiting by the water’s edge for prey to drink. Attackers prey on their targets by injecting malicious code, such as an exploit kit or malware loader, into websites that are popular with their victims. These victims are then infected when they visit said websites unknowingly. This opens as a gateway for attackers to infiltrate corporate systems, harvest credentials, and pivot across internal networks. 

‍

How Watering Hole Attacks Unfold

The attack lifecycle usually progresses as follows:

• Reconnaissance - Attackers gather intelligence on the websites frequented by the target audience, including specialized communities, partner websites, or local news sites.  
• Website Exploitation - Through the use of outdated CMS software and insecure plugins, attackers gain access to the target website and insert malicious code such as JS or iframe redirections.  
• Delivery and Exploitation - The visitor’s browser executes the malicious code injected into the page. The code might include a redirection payload which sends the user to an exploit kit that checks the user’s browser, plugins, operating system, and other components for vulnerabilities.  
• Infection and Persistence - The infected system malware such as RATs, keyloggers, or backdoors. These enable lateral and long-term movements within the organisation for espionage.  
• Command and Control (C2) - For further instructions, additional payload delivery, and stolen data retrieval, infected devices connect to servers managed by the attackers.

‍

Key Features of Watering Hole Attacks  

• Indirect Approach: Instead of going after the main target, attackers focus on sites that the main target trusts.  
• Supply-Chain-Like Impact: An infected industry portal can affect many companies at the same time.  
• Low Profile: It is difficult to identify since the traffic comes from real websites.  
• Advanced Customization: Exploit kits are known to specialize in making custom payloads for specific browsers or OS versions to increase the chance of success.  

‍

Why Are These Attacks Dangerous?  

Worming hole attacks shift the battlefield to new grounds in cyber warfare on the web. They eliminate the need for firewalls, email shields, and other security measures because they operate on the traffic to and from real, trusted websites. When the attacks work as intended, the following consequences can be expected:  

• Stealing Credentials: Including privileged accounts and VPN credentials.  
• Espionage: Theft of intellectual property, defense blueprints, or government confidential information.  
• Supply Chain Attacks: Resulting in a series of infections among related companies.  
• Zero-Day Exploits: Including automated attacks using zero-day exploits for full damage.

‍

Incidents of Primary Concern  

The implications of watering hole attacks have been felt in the real world for quite some time. An example from 2019 reveals this, where a known VoIP firm’s site was compromised and used to spread data-stealing malware to its users. Likewise, in 2014, the Operation Snowman campaign—which seems to have a state-backed origin—attempted to infect users of a U.S. veterans’ portal in order to gain access to visitors from government, defense, and related fields. Rounding up the list, in 2021, cybercriminals attacked regional publications focusing on energy, using the publications to spread malware to company officials and engineers working on critical infrastructure, as well as to steal data from their systems. These attacks show the widespread and dangerous impact of watering hole attacks in the world of cybersecurity.

‍

Detection Issues  

Due to the following reasons, traditional approaches to security fail to detect watering hole attacks:  

• Use of Authentic Websites: Attacks involving trusted and popular domains evade detection via blacklisting.  
• Encrypted Traffic: Delivering payloads over HTTPS conceals malicious scripts from being inspected at the network level.  
• Fileless Methods: Using in-memory execution is a modern campaign technique, and detection based on signatures is futile.

‍

Mitigation Strategies

To effectively neutralize the threat of watering hole attacks, an organization should implement a defense-in-depth strategy that incorporates the following elements:

1. Patch Management and Hardening - 

• Conduct routine updates on operating systems, web browsers, and extensions to eliminate exploit opportunities. 
• Either remove or reduce the use of high-risk elements such as Flash and Java, if feasible. 

2. Network Segmentation - Minimize lateral movement by isolating critical systems from the general user network.
3. Behavioral Analytics - Implement Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools to oversee unusual behaviors on processes—for example, script execution or dubious outgoing connections. 
4. DNS Filtering and Web Isolation - Implement DNS-layer security to deny access to known malicious domains and use browser isolation for dangerous sites. 
5. Threat Intelligence Integration - Track watering hole threats and campaigns for indicators of compromise (IoCs) on advisories and threat feeds.
6. Multi-Layer Email and Web Security - Use web gateways integrated with dynamic content scanning, heuristic analysis, and sandboxing. 
7. Zero Trust Architecture - Apply least privilege access, require device attestation, and continuous authentication for accessing sensitive resources.

‍

Incident Response Best Practices 

• Forensic Analysis: Check affected endpoints for any mechanisms set up for persistence and communication with C2 servers. 
• Log Review: Look through proxy, DNS, and firewall logs to detect suspicious traffic. 
• Threat Hunting: Search your environment for known Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) related to recent watering hole attacks. 
• User Awareness Training: Help employees understand the dangers related to visiting external industry websites and promote safe browsing practices. 

‍

The Immediate Need for Action

The adoption of cloud computing and remote working models has significantly increased the attack surface for watering hole attacks. Trust and healthcare sectors are increasingly targeted by nation-state groups and cybercrime gangs using this technique. Not taking action may lead to data leaks, legal fines, and break-ins through the supply chain, which damage the trustworthiness and operational capacity of the enterprise.

‍

Conclusion  

Watering hole attacks demonstrate how phishing attacks evolve from a broad attack to a very specific, trust-based attack. Protecting against these advanced attacks requires the zero-trust mindset, adaptive defenses, and continuous monitoring, which is multicentral security. Advanced response measures, proactive threat intelligence, and detection technologies integration enable organizations to turn this silent threat from a lurking predator to a manageable risk.

‍

References

• https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/watering-hole-attack
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watering_hole_attack
• https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/watering-hole
• https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/watering-hole-attack

‍