#FactCheck-Has PM Modi Responded To Viral Claim Of Resignation? No, Social Media Post Is Fabricated

On 6 June 2025, the EU Council officially adopted the revised Cybersecurity Blueprint, marking a significant evolution from the 2017 guidance. This framework, formalised through Council Recommendation COM(2025) 66 final, responds to a transformed threat environment and reflects new legal milestones like the NIS2 Directive (Network and Information Security Directive) and the Cyber Solidarity Act.

From Fragmented Response to Cohesive Strategy

‍

Between 2017 and now, EU member states have built various systems to manage cyber incidents. Still, real-world events and exercises highlighted critical gaps - uncoordinated escalation procedures, inconsistent terminology, and siloed information flows. The updated Blueprint addresses these issues by focusing on a harmonised operational architecture for the EU. It defines a clear crisis lifecycle with five stages: Detection, Analysis, Escalation, Response, and Recovery. Each stage is supported by common communication protocols, decision-making processes, and defined roles. Consistency is key; standardised terminology along with a broad scope of application that eases cross-border collaboration and empowers coherent response efforts.

Legal Foundations: NIS2, ENISA & EU‑CyCLONe

‍

Several core pillars of EU cybersecurity directly underpin the Blueprint:

• ENISA – The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity continues to play a central role. It supports CSIRTs' Network operations, leads EU‑CyCLONe ( European cyber crisis liaison organisation network) coordination, conducts simulation exercises, and gives training on incident management
• NIS2 Directive, particularly Article 16, is a follow-up of NIS. NIS2 mandates operators of critical infrastructure and essential services to implement appropriate security measures and report incidents to the relevant authorities. Compared to NIS, NIS2 expands its EU-wide security requirements and scope of covered organisations and sectors to improve the security of supply chains, simplify reporting obligations, and enforce more stringent measures and sanctions throughout Europe. It also formally legitimises the EU‑CyCLONe network, which is the crisis liaison mechanism bridging technical teams from member states.

‍

These modern tools, integrated with legal backing, ensure the Blueprint isn’t just theoretical; it’s operationally enforceable.

‍

What’s Inside the Blueprint?

‍

The 2025 Blueprint enhances several critical areas:

‍

1. Clear Escalation Triggers - It spells out when a national cyber incident merits EU-level attention, especially those affecting critical infrastructure across borders. Civilian Military Exchange. The Blueprint encourages structured information sharing with defence institutions and NATO, recognising that cyber incidents often have geopolitical implications 
2. Recovery & Lessons Learned – A dedicated chapter ensures systematic post-incident reviews and shared learning among member states.

‍

Adaptive & Resilient by Design

‍

Rather than a static document, the Blueprint is engineered to evolve:

• Regular Exercises: Built into the framework are simulation drills that are known as Blueprint Operational Level Exercises—to test leadership response and cross-border coordination via EU‑CyCLONe
• Dynamic Reviews: The system promotes continuous iteration- this includes revising protocols, learning from real incidents, and refining role definitions.
  
  

This iterative, learning-oriented architecture aims to ensure the Blueprint remains robust amid rapidly evolving threats, including AI-boosted hacks and hybrid cyber campaigns.

Global Implications & Lessons for Others

‍

The EU’s Cybersecurity Blueprint sets a global benchmark in cyber resilience and crisis governance:

• Blueprint for Global Coordination: The EU’s method of defined crisis stages, empowered liaison bodies (like EU‑CyCLONe), and continuous exercise can inspire other regional blocs or national governments to build their own crisis mechanisms.
• Public–Private Synergy: The Blueprint’s insistence on cooperation between governments and private-sector operators of essential services (e.g., energy, telecom, health) provides a model for forging robust ecosystems.
• Learning & Sharing at Scale: Its requirement for post-crisis lessons and peer exchange can fuel a worldwide knowledge network, cultivating resilience across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

‍

The 2025 EU Cybersecurity Blueprint is more than an upgrade; it’s a strategic shift toward operational readiness, legal coherence, and collaborative resilience. Anchored in NIS2 and ENISA, and supported by EU‑CyCLONe, it replaces fragmented guidance with a well-defined, adaptive model. Its adoption signals a transformative moment in global cyber governance as for nations building crisis frameworks, the Blueprint offers a tested, comprehensive template: define clear stages, equip liaison networks, mandate drills, integrate lessons, and legislate coordination. In an era where cyber threats transcend borders, this proves to be an important development that can offer guidance and set a precedent.

‍

For India, the EU Cybersecurity Blueprint offers a valuable reference point as we strengthen our own frameworks through initiatives like the DPDP Act, the upcoming Digital India Act and CERT-In’s evolving mandates. It reinforces the importance of coordinated response systems, cross-sector drills, and legal clarity. As cyber threats grow more complex, such global models can complement our national efforts and enhance regional cooperation.

‍

References

• https://industrialcyber.co/expert/the-eus-cybersecurity-blueprint-and-the-future-of-cyber-crisis-management/
• https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/06/06/eu-adopts-blueprint-to-better-manage-european-cyber-crises-and-incidents/ 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/eu-incident-response-and-cyber-crisis-management 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/news/new-cyber-blueprint-to-scale-up-the-eu-cybersecurity-crisis-management 
• https://www.isc2.org/Insights/2025/01/EU-Cyber-Solidarity-Act 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/eu-incident-response-and-cyber-crisis-management/eu-cyclone 
• https://nis2directive.eu/what-is-nis2/ 

‍

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍

Executive Summary
‍

As tensions between the United States and Iran continue to escalate in West Asia, a video showing a massive fire engulfing an industrial facility is being widely circulated on social media. Several users claim that the footage shows the aftermath of a recent U.S. strike on Iran. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video is not related to the current U.S.-Iran conflict. It actually shows a 2022 attack on Saudi Arabia's Aramco petroleum distribution facility in Jeddah, carried out by Yemen's Houthi rebels.

‍

Claim

‍

An X user shared the viral video on July 16, 2026, claiming that it shows a recent American attack on Iran. https://x.com/SonOfBharat7/status/2077823734069826027 , https://perma.cc/RPA9-YZ3C 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found that the same video had been uploaded by Reuters on March 26, 2022. According to Reuters, Yemen's Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for attacks on Saudi Arabia's energy facilities. Reuters reported that the Saudi-led coalition confirmed an attack on Saudi Aramco's petroleum products distribution station in Jeddah, where two storage tanks caught fire. The incident caused significant damage but no casualties were reported. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CAxj5tgZ_w
‍

‍

For further verification, we found another video of the same incident uploaded by the Qatar Day Facebook page on March 25, 2022, showing the fire from a different angle. According to the post, a massive blaze broke out at an oil depot in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, after Yemen's Houthi rebels launched multiple drone and missile attacks targeting Saudi infrastructure. Thick black smoke could be seen rising over the city.

‍

‍

Additionally, The Sun also uploaded the same footage on March 26, 2022, identifying it as the attack on Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFj5nDL0y7o

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral video does not show a recent U.S. attack on Iran.Although the United States and Iran have recently exchanged military strikes and attacks on civilian infrastructure have been reported, the viral footage predates the current conflict by several years. It actually shows the March 2022 Houthi attack on Saudi Aramco's petroleum distribution facility in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the claim linking the video to the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict is false and misleading.

‍