#FactCheck-Viral Video Falsely Attributes Remarks on US Leaders to CDS Anil Chauhan

Overview:

The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) officially revealed on the 31st of July 2024 that its client C-Edge Technologies had been subject to a ransomware attack. These circumstances have caused C-Edge to be separated from retail payment systems to  eliminate more threats to the national payment systems. More than 200 cooperative and regional rural banks have been affected leading to disruptions in normal services including ATM withdrawals and UPI transactions.

About C-Edge Technologies:

C-Edge Technologies was founded in the year 2010 especially to meet the specific requirements of the Indian banking and other allied sectors accentuating more on the cooperative and the regional rural banks. The company offers a range of services such as Core Banking Solutions by functioning as the center of a bank where customers’ records are managed and accounting of transactions takes place, Payment Solutions through the implementation of payment gateways and mobile banking facilities, cybersecurity through threat detection and incident response to protect banking organizations, data analytics and AI through the analytics of big banking data to reduce risks and detect frauds.

Details of Ransomware attack:

Reports say, this ransomware attack has been attributed by the RansomEXX group which primarily targeted Brontoo Technology Solutions, a key collaborator with  C-Edge, through a misconfigured Jenkins server, which allowed unauthorized access to the systems.

The RansomExx group also known as Defray777 or Ransom X utilized a sophisticated variant known as RansomEXX v2.0 to execute the attack. This group often targets large organizations and demands substantial ransoms.  RansomEXX uses various malware tools such as IcedID, Vatet Loader, and PyXie RAT. It typically infiltrates systems through phishing emails, exploiting vulnerabilities in applications and services, including Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP).  The ransomware encrypts files using the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), with the encryption key further secured using RSA encryption. This dual-layer encryption complicates recovery efforts for victims. RansomEXX operates on a ransomware-as-a-service model, allowing affiliates to conduct attacks using its infrastructure. Earlier in 2021,  it attacked StarHub and Gigabyte’s servers for ransome.

Impact due to the attack:

The immediate consequences of the ransomware attack include:

• Service Disruption: This has negative implications to consumers especially the citizens who use the banks to do their day to day banking activities such as withdrawals and online transactions. Among the complaints some of them relate to cases where the sender’s account has been debited without the corresponding credit to the receiver account.

• Isolation Measures: Likely, NPCI is already following the right measures as it had disconnected C-Edge from its networks to contain the proliferation of the ransomware. This decision was made as a precautionary measure so that all functional aspects in a larger financial system are safeguarded.

Operations resumed:

The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) said it has restored connectivity with C-Edge Technologies Ltd after the latter’s network connection was severed by NPCI over security concerns that were evaluated by an external forensic auditing firm. The audit affirmed that all affected systems were contained in order to avoid the occurrence of ransomware attack contagion. All the affected systems were localized in C-Edge’s data center and no repercussion was evidenced regarding the infrastructure of the cooperative banks or the regional rural banks that are involved in the business. Both NPCI and C-Edge Technologies have resumed normalcy so that the banking and financial services being offered by these banks remain safe and secure.

Major Implications for Banking Sector:

The attack on C-Edge Technologies raises several critical concerns for the Indian banking sector:

• Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities: It also shows the weak linkages which are present within the technology system that help smaller sized banks. Nevertheless, the service has been offered by C-Edge regarding their cybersecurity solution, this attack evidence that the securities required should improve in all types of banks and banking applications.

• Financial Inclusion Risks: Co operative and regional rural banks also have its importance in the financial inclusion especially in rural and semi urban areas. Gradually, interruptions to their services pose a risk to signal diminished improvement in financial literacy for the excluded groups contrary to the common year advancement.

• Regulatory Scrutiny: After this event, agencies such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) may enhance the examination of the banking sector’s cybersecurity mechanisms. Some of the directives may even require institutions to adhere to higher compliance measures regarding the defense against cyber threats.

Way Forward: Mitigation  

• Strengthening Cybersecurity: It is important to enhance the cyber security to eliminate this kind of attacks in the future. This may include using  better threat detection systems, penetration testing to find the vulnerabilities, system hardening, and network monitoring  from time to time.

• Transition to Cloud-Based Solutions: The application of adaptations in cloud solutions can contribute to the enhancement in operative efficiency as well as optimization in the utilization of resources. The security features of cloud should be implemented for  safety  and protection against cyber threats for SMEs in the banking sector.

• Leveraging AI and Data Analytics: Development of the AI-based solutions for fraud and risk control means that bank organizations get the chance to address threats and to regain clients’ trust.

Conclusion:

This ransomware attack in C-Edge Technologies in the banking sector provides a warning for all the infrastructures. Initial cleanup methodologies and quarantining are effective. The continuous monitoring of cyber security features in the infrastructure and awareness between employees helps to avoid these kinds of attacks.  Building up cyber security areas will also effectively safeguard the institution against other cyber risks in the future and fortify the confidence and reliability of the financial system, especially the regional rural banks.

Reference:

• https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/c-edge-technologies-a-deep-dive-into-the-indian-fintech-powerhouse-hit-by-major-cyberattack-439657-2024-08-01
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/customers-at-several-small-sized-banks-affected-as-tech-provider-c-edge-suffers-ransomware-attack/article68470198.ece
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/ransomware-attack-disrupts-over-200-co-operative-banks-regional-rural-banks-19452521.htm
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/ransomware-breach-at-c-edge-impacts-transactions-for-cooperative-banks/articleshow/112180914.cms
• https://www.emsisoft.com/en/blog/41027/ransomware-profile-ransomexx/

‍

Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.

The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.

‍

The Emergence of the Digital Menace

‍

Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.

‍

The Gap in Law and Institution

‍

None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.

‍

II. Explanation of the Amendments

The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation. 

‍

A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.

‍

Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:

The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.

Expansion of Legal Scope:

Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.

‍

B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements

‍

Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:

The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.

‍

C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content

‍

The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
3. It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary. 

2. The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.

‍

D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities

‍

The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps. 

Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users. 

Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.

Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.

The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance. 

An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.

‍

III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework

‍

1. Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.

The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability. 

2. Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge

Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.

3. Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance

The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.

4. Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation

The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.

‍

IV. Conclusion

‍

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.

‍

V. References 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍

Executive Summary
‍

Iran’s official news agencies have denied claims that senior officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, have arrived in Pakistan for talks. A senior official told Iran’s Tasnim News Agency that Tehran is considering Pakistan’s proposal for peace talks, but any dialogue would depend on the United States fulfilling its commitment to halt military actions on all fronts.

Notably, the United States and Iran had agreed to a two-week ceasefire on April 8, 2026, with discussions reportedly scheduled for April 11 in Islamabad. Amid this backdrop, a video showing fighter jets escorting a large aircraft is being widely circulated on social media. Users claim that Pakistan deployed these jets to escort an Iranian delegation into the country.

However, an research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be false. The viral video is not recent and dates back to 2019.

‍

Claim

‍

An X (formerly Twitter) user shared the video claiming that Pakistan Air Force jets were escorting an Iranian delegation into Pakistan.

• https://x.com/55MTQ_/status/2042431764409507856 
• https://archive.ph/QftAS 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

Reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video led us to a February 18, 2019 report by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The report stated that the fighter jets were deployed by Pakistan to escort the aircraft of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during his visit to Pakistan on February 17, 2019.

• https://www.rferl.org/a/pakistan-saudi-prince/29776242.html

‍

‍

Further verification led us to the same footage uploaded on YouTube by the channel “SCMP Archive” on July 6, 2020. At the time, Pakistan’s Air Force had described the escort as part of a ceremonial welcome tradition for visiting dignitaries.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zSmOrLluVA

‍

‍

Conclusion

The viral claim is misleading. The video does not show Pakistani fighter jets escorting an Iranian delegation amid ongoing ceasefire talks. Instead, it is an old clip from 2019, when Pakistan deployed JF-17 fighter jets to welcome Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during his official visit. There is no evidence linking the video to current geopolitical developments involving Iran and Pakistan. The footage has been taken out of context and reshared with a false narrative to mislead viewers.

‍