#FactCheck- No, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei Is Not Dead—Viral Video Debunked
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media claims that Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has passed away, with users attributing the claim to American sources. However, research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be false. Our research confirms that Mojtaba Khamenei is alive and in good health.
Claim
A Facebook user shared the viral video, claiming that Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had died.

Fact Check
To verify the claim, we conducted keyword searches on Google but found no credible media reports confirming his death. Further research led us to a report published on April 10, 2026, by ABP News. According to the report, amid discussions around a ceasefire, Mojtaba Khamenei issued a statement saying that Iran does not seek war with the United States or Israel, but as a nation, it must defend its rights.

Additionally, the image used in the viral video was analyzed using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The results indicated a 99% probability that the image is AI-generated.

Conclusion
The viral claim is false and misleading. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Mojtaba Khamenei has died. On the contrary, recent verified reports confirm that he is alive and has even issued public statements on ongoing geopolitical developments. The widespread circulation of this claim appears to be driven by misinformation, amplified through social media without verification. The use of AI-generated visuals further adds to the confusion, making the content appear authentic at first glance.
Related Blogs

Executive Summary:
A video circulating on social media falsely claims to show Indian Air Chief Marshal AP Singh admitting that India lost six jets and a Heron drone during Operation Sindoor in May 2025. It has been revealed that the footage had been digitally manipulated by inserting an AI generated voice clone of Air Chief Marshal Singh into his recent speech, which was streamed live on August 9, 2025.
Claim:
A viral video (archived video) (another link) shared by an X user stating in the caption “ Breaking: Finally Indian Airforce Chief admits India did lose 6 Jets and one Heron UAV during May 7th Air engagements.” which is actually showing the Air Chief Marshal has admitted the aforementioned loss during Operation Sindoor.

Fact Check:
By conducting a reverse image search on key frames from the video, we found a clip which was posted by ANI Official X handle , after watching the full clip we didn't find any mention of the aforementioned alleged claim.

On further research we found an extended version of the video in the Official YouTube Channel of ANI which was published on 9th August 2025. At the 16th Air Chief Marshal L.M. Katre Memorial Lecture in Marathahalli, Bengaluru, Air Chief Marshal AP Singh did not mention any loss of six jets or a drone in relation to the conflict with Pakistan. The discrepancies observed in the viral clip suggest that portions of the audio may have been digitally manipulated.

The audio in the viral video, particularly the segment at the 29:05 minute mark alleging the loss of six Indian jets, appeared to be manipulated and displayed noticeable inconsistencies in tone and clarity.
Conclusion:
The viral video claiming that Air Chief Marshal AP Singh admitted to the loss of six jets and a Heron UAV during Operation Sindoor is misleading. A reverse image search traced the footage that no such remarks were made. Further an extended version on ANI’s official YouTube channel confirmed that, during the 16th Air Chief Marshal L.M. Katre Memorial Lecture, no reference was made to the alleged losses. Additionally, the viral video’s audio, particularly around the 29:05 mark, showed signs of manipulation with noticeable inconsistencies in tone and clarity.
- Claim: Viral Video Claiming IAF Chief Acknowledged Loss of Jets Found Manipulated
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading

Introduction
The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue.
Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers
In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions” serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach.
This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector.
Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle
In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported.
The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.
Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards.
Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability.
Conclusion
The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof.
It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper.
References
- https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962
- https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case

Executive Summary:
BrazenBamboo’s DEEPDATA malware represents a new wave of advanced cyber espionage tools, exploiting a zero-day vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClient to extract VPN credentials and sensitive data through fileless malware techniques and secure C2 communications. With its modular design, DEEPDATA targets browsers, messaging apps, and password stores, while leveraging reflective DLL injection and encrypted DNS to evade detection. Cross-platform compatibility with tools like DEEPPOST and LightSpy highlights a coordinated development effort, enhancing its espionage capabilities. To mitigate such threats, organizations must enforce network segmentation, deploy advanced monitoring tools, patch vulnerabilities promptly, and implement robust endpoint protection. Vendors are urged to adopt security-by-design practices and incentivize vulnerability reporting, as vigilance and proactive planning are critical to combating this sophisticated threat landscape.
Introduction
The increased use of zero-day vulnerabilities by more complex threat actors reinforces the importance of more developed countermeasures. One of the threat actors identified is BrazenBamboo uses a zero-day vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClient for Windows through the DEEPDATA advanced malware framework. This research explores technical details about DEEPDATA, the tricks used in its operations, and its other effects.
Technical Findings
1. Vulnerability Exploitation Mechanism
The vulnerability in Fortinet’s FortiClient lies in its failure to securely handle sensitive information in memory. DEEPDATA capitalises on this flaw via a specialised plugin, which:
- Accesses the VPN client’s process memory.
- Extracts unencrypted VPN credentials from memory, bypassing typical security protections.
- Transfers credentials to a remote C2 server via encrypted communication channels.
2. Modular Architecture
DEEPDATA exhibits a highly modular design, with its core components comprising:
- Loader Module (data.dll): Decrypts and executes other payloads.
- Orchestrator Module (frame.dll): Manages the execution of multiple plugins.
- FortiClient Plugin: Specifically designed to target Fortinet’s VPN client.
Each plugin operates independently, allowing flexibility in attack strategies depending on the target system.
3. Command-and-Control (C2) Communication
DEEPDATA establishes secure channels to its C2 infrastructure using WebSocket and HTTPS protocols, enabling stealthy exfiltration of harvested data. Technical analysis of network traffic revealed:
- Dynamic IP switching for C2 servers to evade detection.
- Use of Domain Fronting, hiding C2 communication within legitimate HTTPS traffic.
- Time-based communication intervals to minimise anomalies in network behavior.
4. Advanced Credential Harvesting Techniques
Beyond VPN credentials, DEEPDATA is capable of:
- Dumping password stores from popular browsers, such as Chrome, Firefox, and Edge.
- Extracting application-level credentials from messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Skype.
- Intercepting credentials stored in local databases used by apps like KeePass and Microsoft Outlook.
5. Persistence Mechanisms
To maintain long-term access, DEEPDATA employs sophisticated persistence techniques:
- Registry-based persistence: Modifies Windows registry keys to reload itself upon system reboot.
- DLL Hijacking: Substitutes legitimate DLLs with malicious ones to execute during normal application operations.
- Scheduled Tasks and Services: Configures scheduled tasks to periodically execute the malware, ensuring continuous operation even if detected and partially removed.
Additional Tools in BrazenBamboo’s Arsenal
1. DEEPPOST
A complementary tool used for data exfiltration, DEEPPOST facilitates the transfer of sensitive files, including system logs, captured credentials, and recorded user activities, to remote endpoints.
2. LightSpy Variants
- The Windows variant includes a lightweight installer that downloads orchestrators and plugins, expanding espionage capabilities across platforms.
- Shellcode-based execution ensures that LightSpy’s payload operates entirely in memory, minimising artifacts on the disk.
3. Cross-Platform Overlaps
BrazenBamboo’s shared codebase across DEEPDATA, DEEPPOST, and LightSpy points to a centralised development effort, possibly linked to a Digital Quartermaster framework. This shared ecosystem enhances their ability to operate efficiently across macOS, iOS, and Windows systems.
Notable Attack Techniques
1. Memory Injection and Data Extraction
Using Reflective DLL Injection, DEEPDATA injects itself into legitimate processes, avoiding detection by traditional antivirus solutions.
- Memory Scraping: Captures credentials and sensitive information in real-time.
- Volatile Data Extraction: Extracts transient data that only exists in memory during specific application states.
2. Fileless Malware Techniques
DEEPDATA leverages fileless infection methods, where its payload operates exclusively in memory, leaving minimal traces on the system. This complicates post-incident forensic investigations.
3. Network Layer Evasion
By utilising encrypted DNS queries and certificate pinning, DEEPDATA ensures that network-level defenses like intrusion detection systems (IDS) and firewalls are ineffective in blocking its communications.
Recommendations
1. For Organisations
- Apply Network Segmentation: Isolate VPN servers from critical assets.
- Enhance Monitoring Tools: Deploy behavioral analysis tools that detect anomalous processes and memory scraping activities.
- Regularly Update and Patch Software: Although Fortinet has yet to patch this vulnerability, organisations must remain vigilant and apply fixes as soon as they are released.
2. For Security Teams
- Harden Endpoint Protections: Implement tools like Memory Integrity Protection to prevent unauthorised memory access.
- Use Network Sandboxing: Monitor and analyse outgoing network traffic for unusual behaviors.
- Threat Hunting: Proactively search for indicators of compromise (IOCs) such as unauthorised DLLs (data.dll, frame.dll) or C2 communications over non-standard intervals.
3. For Vendors
- Implement Security by Design: Adopt advanced memory protection mechanisms to prevent credential leakage.
- Bug Bounty Programs: Encourage researchers to report vulnerabilities, accelerating patch development.
Conclusion
DEEPDATA is a form of cyber espionage and represents the next generation of tools that are more advanced and tunned for stealth, modularity and persistence. While Brazen Bamboo is in the process of fine-tuning its strategies, the organisations and vendors have to be more careful and be ready to respond to these tricks. The continuous updating, the ability to detect the threats and a proper plan on how to deal with incidents are crucial in combating the attacks.