#FactCheck-Misleading Video of Building Collapse in Turkey Falsely Shared as Venezuela Earthquake Footage

Misinformation is a scourge in the digital world, making the most mundane experiences fraught with risk. The threat is considerably heightened in conflict settings, especially in the modern era, where geographical borders blur and civilians and conflict actors alike can take to the online realm to discuss -and influence- conflict events. Propaganda can complicate the narrative and distract from the humanitarian crises affecting civilians, while also posing a serious threat to security operations and law and order efforts. Sensationalised reports of casualties and manipulated portrayals of military actions contribute to a cycle of violence and suffering. 

A study conducted by MIT found the mere thought of sharing news on social media reduced the ability to judge whether a story was true or false; the urge to share outweighed the consideration of accuracy (2023).  Cross-border misinformation has become a critical issue in today's interconnected world, driven by the rise of digital communication platforms. To effectively combat misinformation, coordinated international policy frameworks and cooperation between governments, platforms, and global institutions are created.

The Global Nature of Misinformation

Cross-border misinformation is false or misleading information that spreads across countries. Out-of-border creators amplify information through social media and digital platforms and are a key source of misinformation. Misinformation can interfere with elections, and create serious misconceptions about health concerns such as those witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, or even lead to military conflicts. 

The primary challenge in countering cross-border misinformation is the difference in national policies, legal frameworks and governance policies of social media platforms across various jurisdictions. Examining the existing international frameworks, such as cybersecurity treaties and data-sharing agreements used for financial crimes might be helpful to effectively address cross-border misinformation. Adapting these approaches to the digital information ecosystem, nations could strengthen their collective response to the spread of misinformation across borders. Global institutions like the United Nations or regional bodies like the EU and ASEAN can work together to set a unified response and uniform international standards for regulation dealing with misinformation specifically. 

Current National and Regional Efforts

Many countries have taken action to deal with misinformation within their borders. Some examples include:

• The EU’s Digital Services Act has been instrumental in regulating online intermediaries and platforms including marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, etc. The legislation aims to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.
• The primary legislation that governs cyberspace in India is the IT Act of 2000 and its corresponding rules (IT Rules, 2023), which impose strict requirements on social media platforms to counter misinformation content and enable the traceability of the creator responsible for the origin of misinformation. Platforms have to conduct due diligence, failing which they risk losing their safe harbour protection. The recently-enacted DPDP Act of 2023 indirectly addresses personal data misuse that can be used to contribute to the creation and spread of misinformation. Also, the proposed Digital India Act is expected to focus on “user harms” specific to the online world. 
• In the U.S., the Right to Editorial Discretion and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act place the responsibility for regulating misinformation on private actors like social media platforms and social media regulations. The US government has not created a specific framework addressing misinformation and has rather encouraged voluntary measures by SMPs to have independent policies to regulate misinformation on their platforms.

The common gap area across these policies is the absence of a standardised, global framework for addressing cross-border misinformation which results in uneven enforcement and dependence on national regulations.

Key Challenges in Achieving International Cooperation

Some of the key challenges identified in achieving international cooperation to address cross-border misinformation are as follows:

• Geopolitical tensions can emerge due to the differences in political systems, priorities, and trust issues between countries that hinder attempts to cooperate and create a universal regulation.
• The diversity in approaches to internet governance and freedom of speech across countries complicates the matters further.
• Further complications arise due to technical and legal obstacles around the issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction and enforcement, further complicating matters relating to the monitoring and removal of cross-border misinformation. 

CyberPeace Recommendations 

• The UN Global Principles For Information Integrity Recommendations for Multi-stakeholder Action, unveiled on 24 June 2024, are a welcome step for addressing cross-border misinformation. This can act as the stepping stone for developing a framework for international cooperation on misinformation, drawing inspiration from other successful models like climate change agreements, international criminal law framework etc. 
• Collaborations like public-private partnerships between government, tech companies and civil societies can help enhance transparency, data sharing and accountability in tackling cross-border misinformation. 
• Engaging in capacity building and technology transfers in less developed countries would help to create a global front against misinformation. 

Conclusion

We are in an era where misinformation knows no borders and the need for international cooperation has never been more urgent. Global democracies are exploring solutions, both regulatory and legislative, to limit the spread of misinformation, however, these fragmented efforts fall short of addressing the global scale of the problem. Establishing a standardised, international framework, backed by multilateral bodies like the UN and regional alliances, can foster accountability and facilitate shared resources in this fight. Through collaborative action, transparent regulations, and support for developing nations, the world can create a united front to curb misinformation and protect democratic values, ensuring information integrity across borders.

References

• https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/A%20Model%20of%20Online%20Misinformation.pdf 
• https://www.indiatoday.in/global/story/in-the-crosshairs-manufacturing-consent-and-the-erosion-of-public-trust-2620734-2024-10-21 
• https://laweconcenter.org/resources/knowledge-and-decisions-in-the-information-age-the-law-economics-of-regulating-misinformation-on-social-media-platforms/ ‍
• https://www.article19.org/resources/un-article-19-global-principles-for-information-integrity/

Executive Summary 

A video is being shared on social media claiming to show an avalanche in Kashmir. The caption of the post alleges that the incident occurred on February 6. Several users sharing the video are also urging people to avoid unnecessary travel to hilly regions. CyberPeace’s research found that the video being shared as footage of a Kashmir avalanche is not real. The research  revealed that the viral video is AI-generated.

‍

Claim

‍

The video is circulating widely on social media platforms, particularly Instagram, with users claiming it shows an avalanche in Kashmir on February 6. The archived version of the post can be accessed here. Similar posts were also found online. (Links and archived links provided)

• https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUd8igPEiGe/
• https://archive.is/jzb24 

‍

‍

Fact Check:  

‍

To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords on Google. During this process, we found a video posted on the official Instagram account of the BBC. The BBC post reported that an avalanche occurred near a resort in Sonamarg, Kashmir, on January 27. However, the BBC post does not contain the viral video that is being shared on social media, indicating that the circulating clip is unrelated to the real incident.

‍

• https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUCyrTjkb-d/

‍

‍

A close examination of the viral video revealed several inconsistencies. For instance, during the alleged avalanche, people present at the site are not seen panicking, running for cover, or moving toward safer locations. Additionally, the movement and flow of the falling snow appear unnatural. Such visual anomalies are commonly observed in videos generated using artificial intelligence. As part of the research , the video was analyzed using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The tool indicated a 99.9% probability that the video was AI-generated.
‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Based on the evidence gathered during our research , it is clear that the video being shared as footage of a Kashmir avalanche is not genuine. The clip is AI-generated and misleading. The viral claim is therefore false.

‍

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

‍