#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Samay Raina Making a Joke on Rekha

Introduction

Misinformation has the potential to impact people, communities and institutions alike, and the ramifications can be far-ranging. From influencing voter behaviours and consumer choices to shaping personal beliefs and community dynamics, the information we consume in our daily lives affects every aspect of our existence. And so, when this very information is flawed or incomplete, whether accidentally or deliberately so, it has the potential to confuse and mislead people. 

‘Debunking’ is the process of exposing false information or countering inaccuracies and manipulation by presenting actual facts. The goal is to minimise the harmful effects of misinformation by informing and educating people. Debunking initiatives work hard to expose false information and cut down conspiracies, catalogue evidence of false information, clearly identify sources of misinformation vs. accurate information, and assert the truth. Debunking looks at building capacity and educating people both as a strategy and goal. 

Debunking is most effective when it comes from trusted sources, provides detailed explanations, and offers guidance and verifiable advice. Debunking is reactive in nature and it focuses on specific instances of misinformation and is closely tied to fact-checking. Debunking aims to mitigate the impact of misinformation that has already spread. As such, the approach is to contain and correct, post-occurrence. The most common method of debunking is collaboration between fact-checking groups and social media companies. When journalists or other fact-checkers identify false or misleading content, social media sites flag or label it such, so that audiences are alerted. Debunking is an essential method for reducing the impact and incidence of misinformation by providing real facts and increasing overall  accuracy of content  in the digital information ecosystem.

Role of Debunking the Misinformation 

Debunking fights against false or misleading information by correcting false claims, myths, and misinformation with evidence-based rebuttals. It combats untruths and the spread of misinformation by providing and disseminating debunked evidence to the public. Debunking by presenting evidence that contradicts misleading facts and encourages individuals to develop fact-checking habits and proactively check for authenticated sources. Debunking plays a vital role in boosting trust in credible sources by offering evidence-based corrections and enhancing the credibility of online information. By exposing falsehoods and endorsing qualities like information completeness and evidence-backed data and logic, debunking efforts help create a culture of well-informed and constructive public conversations and analytical exchanges. Effectively dispelling myths and misinformation can help create communities and societies that are more educated, resilient, and goal-oriented.

Debunking as a tailoring Strategy to counter Misinformation 

Understanding the information environment and source trustworthiness is critical for developing effective debunking techniques. Successful debunking efforts use clear messages, appealing forms, and targeted distribution to reach a wide range of netizens.  Debunking as an effective method for combating misinformation includes analysing successful efforts, using fact-checking, relying on reputable sources for corrections, and using scientific communication. Fact-checking plays a critical role in ensuring information accuracy and holding people accountable for making misleading claims. Collaborative efforts and transparent techniques can boost the credibility and efficacy of fact-checking activities and boost the legitimacy and effectiveness of debunking initiatives at a larger scale. Scientific communication is also critical for debunking myths about different topics/concerns by giving evidence-based information. Clear and understandable framing of scientific knowledge is critical for engaging broad audiences and effectively refuting misinformation. 

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

1. It is recommended that debunking initiatives must highlight core facts, emphasising what is true over what is wrong and establishing a clear contrast between the two. This is crucial as people are more likely to believe familiar information even if they learn later that it is incorrect. Debunking must provide a comprehensive explanation, filling the ‘information gap’ created by the myth. This can be done by explaining things as clearly as possible, as people may stop paying attention if they are faced with an overload of competing information. The use of visuals to illustrate core facts is an effective way to help people understand the issue and clearly tell the difference between information and misinformation.
2. Individuals can play a role in debunking misinformation on social media by highlighting inconsistencies, recommending related articles with corrections or sharing trusted sources and debunking reports in their communities. 
3. Governments and regulatory agencies can improve information openness by demanding explicit source labelling and technical measures to be implemented on platforms. This can increase confidence in information sources and equip people to practice discernment when they consume content online. Governments should also support and encourage independent fact-checking organisations that are working to disprove misinformation. Digital literacy programmes may teach the public how to critically assess information online and spot any misinformation.
4. Tech businesses may enhance algorithms for detecting and flagging misinformation, therefore reducing the propagation of misleading information. Offering options for people to report suspicious/doubtful information and misinformation can empower them and help them play an active role in identifying and rectifying inaccurate information online and foster a more responsible information environment on the platforms.
   

Conclusion

Debunking is an effective strategy to counter widespread misinformation through a combination of fact-checking, scientific evidence, factual explanations, verified facts and corrections. Debunking can play an important role in fostering a culture where people look for authenticity while consuming the information and place a high value on trusted and verified information. A collaborative strategy can increase the legitimacy and reach of debunking efforts, making them more effective in reaching larger audiences and being easy-to-understand for a wide range of demographics. In a complex and ever-evolving digital ecosystem, it is important to build information resilience both at the macro level for the ecosystem as a whole and at the micro level, with the individual consumer. Only then can we ensure a culture of mindful, responsible content creation and consumption. 

References

1. https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/nato_stratcom_coe_fact-checking_and_debunking_02-02-2021-1.pdf

‍

Introduction

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍

Executive Summary:

One of the most complex threats that have appeared in the space of network security is focused on the packet rate attacks that tend to challenge traditional approaches to DDoS threats’ involvement. In this year, the British based biggest Internet cloud provider of Europe, OVHcloud was attacked by a record and unprecedented DDoS attack reaching the rate of 840 million packets per second. Targets over 1 Tbps have been observed more regularly starting from 2023, and becoming nearly a daily occurrence in 2024. The maximum attack on May 25, 2024, got to 2.5 Tbps, this points to a direction to even larger and more complex attacks of up to 5 Tbps. Many of these attacks target critical equipment such as Mikrotik models within the core network environment; detection and subsequent containment of these threats prove a test for cloud security measures.

Modus Operandi of a Packet Rate Attack:

A type of cyberattack where an attacker sends with a large volume of packets in a short period of time aimed at a network device is known as packet rate attack, or packet flood attack or network flood attack under volumetric DDoS attack. As opposed to the deliberately narrow bandwidth attacks, these raids target the computation time linked with package processing. 

Key technical characteristics include: 

• Packet Size: Usually compact, and in many cases is less than 100 bytes 
• Protocol: Named UDP, although it can also involve TCP SYN or other protocol flood attacks 
•  Rate: Exceeding 100 million packets per second (Mpps), with recent attacks exceeding 840 Mpps 
• Source IP Diversity: Usually originating from a small number of sources and with a large number of requests per IP, which testifies about the usage of amplification principles 
• Attack on the Network Stack : To understand the impact, let's examine how these attacks affect different layers of the network stack:

1. Layer 3 (Network Layer):

• Each packet requires routing table lookups and hence routers and L3 switches have the problem of high CPU usage. 
• These mechanisms can often be saturated so that network communication will be negatively impacted by the attacker.

2. Layer 4 (Transport Layer):

• Other stateful devices (e.g. firewalls, load balancers) have problems with tables of connections 
• TCP SYN floods can also utilize all connection slots so that no incoming genuine connection can be made.

3. Layer 7 (Application Layer): 

• Web servers and application firewalls may be triggered to deliver a better response in a large number of requests 
• Session management systems can become saturated, and hence, the performance of future iterations will be a little lower than expected in terms of their perceived quality by the end-user. 

Technical Analysis of Attack Vectors

Recent studies have identified several key vectors exploited in high-volume packet rate attacks:

1.MikroTik RouterOS Exploitation:

• Vulnerability: CVE-2023-4967
• Impact: Allows remote attackers to generate massive packet floods
• Technical detail: Exploits a flaw in the FastTrack implementation

2.DNS Amplification:

• Amplification factor: Up to 54x
• Technique: Exploits open DNS resolvers to generate large responses to small queries
• Challenge: Difficult to distinguish from legitimate DNS traffic

3.NTP Reflection:

• Command: monlist
• Amplification factor: Up to 556.9x
• Mitigation: Requires NTP server updates and network-level filtering

Mitigation Strategies: A Technical Perspective

1. Combating packet rate attacks requires a multi-layered approach:

• Hardware-based Mitigation:
• Implementation: FPGA-based packet processing
• Advantage: Can handle millions of packets per second with minimal latency
• Challenge: High cost and specialized programming requirements

2.Anycast Network Distribution:

• Technique: Distributing traffic across multiple global nodes
• Benefit: Dilutes attack traffic, preventing single-point failures
• Consideration: Requires careful BGP routing configuration

3.Stateless Packet Filtering:

• Method: Applying filtering rules without maintaining connection state
• Advantage: Lower computational overhead compared to stateful inspection
• Trade-off: Less granular control over traffic

4.Machine Learning-based Detection:

• Approach: Using ML models to identify attack patterns in real-time
• Key metrics: Packet size distribution, inter-arrival times, protocol anomalies
• Challenge: Requires continuous model training to adapt to new attack patterns

Performance Metrics and Benchmarking

When evaluating DDoS mitigation solutions for packet rate attacks, consider these key performance indicators:

• Flows per second (fps) or packet per second (pps) capability
• Dispersion and the latency that comes with it is inherent to mitigation systems.
• The false positive rate in the case of the attack detection
• Exposure time before beginning of mitigation from the moment of attack

Way Forward

The packet rate attacks are constantly evolving where the credible defenses have not stayed the same. The next step entails extension to edge computing and 5G networks for distributing mitigation closer to the attack origins. Further, AI-based proactive tools of analysis for prediction of such threats will help to strengthen the protection of critical infrastructure against them in advance.

In order to stay one step ahead in this, it is necessary to constantly conduct research, advance new technologies, and work together with other cybersecurity professionals. There is always a need to develop secure defenses that safeguard these networks.

Reference:

https://blog.ovhcloud.com/the-rise-of-packet-rate-attacks-when-core-routers-turn-evil/

https://cybersecuritynews.com/record-breaking-ddos-attack-840-mpps/

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/famous-ddos-attacks/

‍