India-UK Joint Tech Security Initiative

Introduction

The automobile business is fast expanding, with vehicles becoming sophisticated, interconnected gadgets equipped with cutting-edge digital technology. This integration improves convenience, safety, and efficiency while also exposing automobiles to a new set of cyber risks. Electric vehicles (EVs) are equipped with sophisticated computer systems that manage various functions, such as acceleration, braking, and steering. If these systems are compromised, it could result in hazardous situations, including the remote control of the vehicle or unauthorized access to sensitive data. The automotive sector is evolving with the rise of connected car stakeholders, exposing new vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit. 

Why Automotive Cybersecurity is required

Cybersecurity threats to automotives result from hardware, software and overall systems redundancy. Additional concerns include general privacy clauses that justify collecting and transferring data to “third-party vendors”, without explicitly disclosing who such third parties are and the manner of processing personal data. For example, infotainment platform data may show popular music and the user’s preferences, which may be used by the music industry to improve marketing strategies. Similarly, it is lesser known that any data relating to behavioural tracking data, such as driving patterns etc., are also logged by the original equipment manufacturer.

Hacking is not limited to attackers gaining control of an electronic automobile; it includes malicious actors hacking charging stations to manipulate the systems. In Russia, EV charging stations were hacked in Moscow to display pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin messages such as “Glory to Ukraine” and “Death to the enemy” in the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine war. Other examples include instances from the Isle of Wight, where hackers controlled the EV monitor to show inappropriate content and display high voltage fault codes to EV owners, preventing them from charging their vehicles with empty batteries.

UN Economic Commission for Europe releases Regulation 155 for Automobiles

UN Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 155 lays down uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to cybersecurity and cybersecurity management systems (CSMS). This was originally a part of the Commission.s Work Paper (W.P.) 29 that aimed to harmonise vehicular regulations for vehicles and vehicle equipment. Regulation 155 has a two-prong objective; first, to ensure cybersecurity at the organisational level and second, to ensure adequate designs of the vehicle architecture. A critical aspect in this context is the implementation of a certified CSMS by all companies that bring vehicles to market. Notably, this requirement alters the perspective of manufacturers; their responsibilities no longer conclude with the start of production (SOP). Instead, manufacturers are now required to continuously monitor and assess the safety systems throughout the entire life cycle of a vehicle, including making any necessary improvements.

This Regulation reflects the highly dynamic nature of software development and assurance. Moreover, the management system is designed to ensure compliance with safety requirements across the entire supply chain. This is a significant challenge, considering that suppliers currently account for over 70 per cent of the software volume.

The Regulation, which is binding in nature for 64 member countries, came into force in 2021. UNECE countries were required to be compliant with the Regulations by July 2022 for all new vehicles and by July 2024, the Regulation was set to apply to all vehicles. It is believed that the Regulation will become a de facto global standard, since vehicles authorised in a particular country may not be brought into the global market or the market of any UNECE member country based on any other authorisation. In such a scenario, OEMs of non-member countries may be required to give a “self-declaration”, declaring the equipment’s conformity with cybersecurity standards.

Conclusion

To compete and ensure trust, global car makers must deliver a robust cybersecurity framework that meets evolving regulations. The UNECE regulations in this regard are driving this direction by requiring automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to integrate vehicle cybersecurity throughout the entire value chain. The ‘security by design' approach aims to build a connected car that is trusted by all.  Automotive cybersecurity involves measures and technologies to protect connected vehicles and their onboard systems from growing digital threats.

References:

1. “Electric vehicle cyber security risks and best practices (2023)”, Cyber Talk, 1 August 2023. https://www.cybertalk.org/2023/08/01/electric-vehicle-cyber-security-risks-and-best-practices-2023/#:~:text=EVs%20are%20equipped%20with%20complex,unauthorized%20access%20to%20sensitive%20data. 
2. Gordon, Aaron, “Russian Electric Vehicle Chargers Hacked, Tell Users “PUTIN IS A D*******D”, Vice, 28 February 2022. https://www.vice.com/en/article/russian-electric-vehicle-chargers-hacked-tell-users-putin-is-a-dickhead/ 
3. “Isle of Wight: Council’s electric vehicle chargers hacked to show porn site”, BBC, 6 April 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-61006816 
4. Sandler, Manuel, “UN Regulation No. 155: What You Need to Know about UN R155”, Cyres Consulting, 1 June 2022. https://www.cyres-consulting.com/un-regulation-no-155-requirements-what-you-need-to-know/?srsltid=AfmBOopV1pH1mg6M2Nn439N1-EyiU-gPwH2L4vq5tmP0Y2vUpQR-yfP7#A_short_overview_Background_knowledge_on_UN_Regulation_No_155 
5. https://unece.org/wp29-introduction?__cf_chl_tk=ZYt.Sq4MrXvTwSiYURi_essxUCGCysfPq7eSCg1oXLA-1724839918-0.0.1.1-13972

‍

Introduction

Recently, a Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services was published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The paper explores several OTT regulation-related challenges and solicits input from stakeholders on a suggested regulatory framework. We’ll summarise the paper’s main conclusions in this blog.

Structure of the Paper

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services and Selective Banning of OTT Services intends to solicit comments and recommendations from stakeholders about the regulation of OTT services in India. The paper is broken up into five chapters that cover the introduction and background, issues with regulatory mechanisms for OTT communication services, issues with the selective banning of OTT services, a summary of the issues for consultation, and an overview of international practices on the topic. Written comments from interested parties are requested and may be sent electronically to the Advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licencing) at TRAI. These comments will also be posted on the TRAI website.

Overview of the Paper

• Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

• The first chapter of the essay introduces the subject of OTT communication services and argues why regulatory frameworks are necessary. The chapter also gives a general outline of the topics and the paper’s organisation that will be covered in the following chapters.

• Chapter 2: Examination of the Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top Communication Services

• The second chapter of the essay looks at the problems with OTT communication service regulation. It talks about the many kinds of OTT services and how they affect the conventional telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the regulatory issues raised by OTT services and the various strategies used by various nations to address them.

• Chapter 3: Examination of the Issues Related to Selective Banning of OTT Services

• The final chapter of the essay looks at the problems of selectively outlawing OTT services. It analyses the justifications for government restrictions on OTT services as well as the possible effects of such restrictions on consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the legal and regulatory structures that determine how OTT services are prohibited in various nations.

• Chapter 4: International Practices

• An overview of global OTT communication service best practices is given in the paper’s fourth chapter. It talks about the various regulatory strategies used by nations throughout the world and how they affect consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the difficulties regulators encounter when trying to create efficient regulatory frameworks for OTT services.

• Chapter 5: Issues for Consultation

• This chapter is the spirit of the consultation paper as it covers the points and questions for consultation. This chapter has been classified into two sub-sections – Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanisms for OTT Communication Services and Issues Related to the Selective Banning of OTT Services. The inputs will be entirely focused on these sub headers, and the scope, extent, and ambit of the consultation paper rests on these questions and necessary inputs.

Conclusion

An important publication that aims to address the regulatory issues raised by OTT services is the Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top Communication Services. The paper offers a thorough analysis of the problems with OTT service regulation and requests input from stakeholders on the suggested regulatory structure. In order to make sure that the regulatory framework is efficient and advantageous for everyone, it is crucial for all stakeholders to offer their opinion on the document.

Overview:

The rapid digitization of educational institutions in India has created both opportunities and challenges. While technology has improved access to education and administrative efficiency, it has also exposed institutions to significant cyber threats. This report, published by CyberPeace, examines the types, causes, impacts, and preventive measures related to cyber risks in Indian educational institutions. It highlights global best practices, national strategies, and actionable recommendations to mitigate these threats.

‍

‍

‍

Significance of the Study:

The pandemic-induced shift to online learning, combined with limited cybersecurity budgets, has made educational institutions prime targets for cyberattacks. These threats compromise sensitive student, faculty, and institutional data, leading to operational disruptions, financial losses, and reputational damage. Globally, educational institutions face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for universal and localized responses.

Threat Faced by Education Institutions:

‍

Based on the insights from the CyberPeace’s report titled 'Exploring Cyber Threats and Digital Risks in Indian Educational Institutions', this concise blog provides a comprehensive overview of cybersecurity threats and risks faced by educational institutions, along with essential details to address these challenges.

🎣 Phishing: Phishing is a social engineering tactic where cyber criminals impersonate trusted sources to steal sensitive information, such as login credentials and financial details. It often involves deceptive emails or messages that lead to counterfeit websites, pressuring victims to provide information quickly. Variants include spear phishing, smishing, and vishing.

💰 Ransomware: Ransomware is malware that locks users out of their systems or data until a ransom is paid. It spreads through phishing emails, malvertising, and exploiting vulnerabilities, causing downtime, data leaks, and theft. Ransom demands can range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

🌐 Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS): DDoS attacks overwhelm servers, denying users access to websites and disrupting daily operations, which can hinder students and teachers from accessing learning resources or submitting assignments. These attacks are relatively easy to execute, especially against poorly protected networks, and can be carried out by amateur cybercriminals, including students or staff, seeking to cause disruptions for various reasons

🕵️ Cyber Espionage: Higher education institutions, particularly research-focused universities, are vulnerable to spyware, insider threats, and cyber espionage. Spyware is unauthorized software that collects sensitive information or damages devices. Insider threats arise from negligent or malicious individuals, such as staff or vendors, who misuse their access to steal intellectual property or cause data leaks..

🔒 Data Theft: Data theft is a major threat to educational institutions, which store valuable personal and research information. Cybercriminals may sell this data or use it for extortion, while stealing university research can provide unfair competitive advantages. These attacks can go undetected for long periods, as seen in the University of California, Berkeley breach, where hackers allegedly stole 160,000 medical records over several months.

🛠️ SQL Injection: SQL injection (SQLI) is an attack that uses malicious code to manipulate backend databases, granting unauthorized access to sensitive information like customer details. Successful SQLI attacks can result in data deletion, unauthorized viewing of user lists, or administrative access to the database.

🔍Eavesdropping attack: An eavesdropping breach, or sniffing, is a network attack where cybercriminals steal information from unsecured transmissions between devices. These attacks are hard to detect since they don't cause abnormal data activity. Attackers often use network monitors, like sniffers, to intercept data during transmission.

🤖 AI-Powered Attacks: AI enhances cyber attacks like identity theft, password cracking, and denial-of-service attacks, making them more powerful, efficient, and automated. It can be used to inflict harm, steal information, cause emotional distress, disrupt organizations, and even threaten national security by shutting down services or cutting power to entire regions

Insights from Project eKawach

‍

The CyberPeace Research Wing, in collaboration with SAKEC CyberPeace Center of Excellence (CCoE) and Autobot Infosec Private Limited, conducted a study simulating educational institutions' networks to gather intelligence on cyber threats. As part of the e-Kawach project, a nationwide initiative to strengthen cybersecurity, threat intelligence sensors were deployed to monitor internet traffic and analyze real-time cyber attacks from July 2023 to April 2024, revealing critical insights into the evolving cyber threat landscape.

Cyber Attack  Trends

‍

Between July 2023 and April 2024, the e-Kawach network recorded 217,886 cyberattacks from IP addresses worldwide, with a significant portion originating from countries including the United States, China, Germany, South Korea, Brazil, Netherlands, Russia, France, Vietnam, India, Singapore, and Hong Kong. However, attributing these attacks to specific nations or actors is complex, as threat actors often use techniques like exploiting resources from other countries, or employing VPNs and proxies to obscure their true locations, making it difficult to pinpoint the real origin of the attacks.

Brute Force Attack:

‍

The analysis uncovered an extensive use of automated tools in brute force attacks, with 8,337 unique usernames and 54,784 unique passwords identified. Among these, the most frequently targeted username was “root,” which accounted for over 200,000 attempts. Other commonly targeted usernames included: "admin", "test", "user", "oracle", "ubuntu", "guest", "ftpuser", "pi", "support"

Similarly, the study identified several weak passwords commonly targeted by attackers. “123456” was attempted over 3,500 times, followed by “password” with over 2,500 attempts. Other frequently targeted passwords included: "1234", "12345", "12345678", "admin", "123", "root", "test", "raspberry", "admin123", "123456789"

Insights from Threat Landscape Analysis

‍

Research done by the USI - CyberPeace Centre of Excellence (CCoE) and Resecurity has uncovered several breached databases belonging to public, private, and government universities in India, highlighting significant cybersecurity threats in the education sector. The research aims to identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks without harming individuals or assigning blame, based on data available at the time, which may evolve with new information. Institutions were assigned risk ratings that descend from A to F, with most falling under a D rating, indicating numerous security vulnerabilities. Institutions rated D or F are 5.4 times more likely to experience data breaches compared to those rated A or B. Immediate action is recommended to address the identified risks.

‍

Risk Findings :

‍

The risk findings for the institutions are summarized through a pie chart, highlighting factors such as data breaches, dark web activity, botnet activity, and phishing/domain squatting. Data breaches and botnet activity are significantly higher compared to dark web leakages and phishing/domain squatting. The findings show 393,518 instances of data breaches, 339,442 instances of botnet activity, 7,926 instances related to the dark web and phishing & domain activity - 6711.

‍

Key Indicators:  Multiple instances of data breaches containing credentials (email/passwords) in plain text.

• Botnet activity indicating network hosts compromised by malware.

• Credentials from third-party government and non-governmental websites linked to official institutional emails

• Details of software applications, drivers installed on compromised hosts.

‍

• Sensitive cookie data exfiltrated from various browsers.

‍

• IP addresses of compromised systems.
• Login credentials for different Android applications.

Below is the sample detail of one of the top educational institutions that provides the insights about the higher rate of data breaches, botnet activity, dark web activities and phishing & domain squatting. 

Risk Detection: 

It indicates the number of data breaches, network hygiene, dark web activities, botnet activities, cloud security, phishing & domain squatting, media monitoring and miscellaneous risks. In the below example, we are able to see the highest number of data breaches and botnet activities in the sample particular domain.

Risk Changes:

Risk by Categories:

Risk is categorized with factors such as high, medium and low, the risk is at high level for data breaches and botnet activities.

Challenges Faced by Educational Institutions

‍

Educational institutions face cyberattack risks, the challenges leading to cyberattack incidents in educational institutions are as follows:

🔒 Lack of a Security Framework: A key challenge in cybersecurity for educational institutions is the lack of a dedicated framework for higher education. Existing frameworks like ISO 27001, NIST, COBIT, and ITIL are designed for commercial organizations and are often difficult and costly to implement. Consequently, many educational institutions in India do not have a clearly defined cybersecurity framework.

🔑 Diverse User Accounts: Educational institutions manage numerous accounts for staff, students, alumni, and third-party contractors, with high user turnover. The continuous influx of new users makes maintaining account security a challenge, requiring effective systems and comprehensive security training for all users.

📚 Limited Awareness: Cybersecurity awareness among students, parents, teachers, and staff in educational institutions is limited due to the recent and rapid integration of technology. The surge in tech use, accelerated by the pandemic, has outpaced stakeholders' ability to address cybersecurity issues, leaving them unprepared to manage or train others on these challenges.

📱 Increased Use of Personal/Shared Devices: The growing reliance on unvetted personal/Shared devices for academic and administrative activities amplifies security risks.

💬 Lack of Incident Reporting: Educational institutions often neglect reporting cyber incidents, increasing vulnerability to future attacks. It is essential to report all cases, from minor to severe, to strengthen cybersecurity and institutional resilience.

Impact of Cybersecurity Attacks on Educational Institutions

‍

Cybersecurity attacks on educational institutions lead to learning disruptions, financial losses, and data breaches. They also harm the institution's reputation and pose security risks to students. The following are the impacts of cybersecurity attacks on educational institutions:

📚Impact on the Learning Process: A report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that cyberattacks on school districts resulted in learning losses ranging from three days to three weeks, with recovery times taking between two to nine months.

💸Financial Loss: US schools reported financial losses ranging from $50,000 to $1 million due to expenses like hardware replacement and cybersecurity upgrades, with recovery taking an average of 2 to 9 months.

🔒Data Security Breaches: Cyberattacks exposed sensitive data, including grades, social security numbers, and bullying reports. Accidental breaches were often caused by staff, accounting for 21 out of 25 cases, while intentional breaches by students, comprising 27 out of 52 cases, frequently involved tampering with grades.

⚠️Data Security Breach: Cyberattacks on schools result in breaches of personal information, including grades and social security numbers, causing emotional, physical, and financial harm. These breaches can be intentional or accidental, with a US study showing staff responsible for most accidental breaches (21 out of 25) and students primarily behind intentional breaches (27 out of 52) to change grades.

🏫Impact on Institutional Reputation: Cyberattacks damaged the reputation of educational institutions, eroding trust among students, staff, and families. Negative media coverage and scrutiny impacted staff retention, student admissions, and overall credibility.

🛡️ Impact on Student Safety: ‍‍Cyberattacks compromised student safety and privacy. For example, breaches like live-streaming school CCTV footage caused severe distress, negatively impacting students' sense of security and mental well-being.

CyberPeace Advisory:

‍

CyberPeace emphasizes the importance of vigilance and proactive measures to address cybersecurity risks:

1. Develop effective incident response plans: Establish a clear and structured plan to quickly identify, respond to, and recover from cyber threats. Ensure that staff are well-trained and know their roles during an attack to minimize disruption and prevent further damage.
   
   
2. Implement access controls with role-based permissions: Restrict access to sensitive information based on individual roles within the institution. This ensures that only authorized personnel can access certain data, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or data breaches.
   
   
3. Regularly update software and conduct cybersecurity training: Keep all software and systems up-to-date with the latest security patches to close vulnerabilities. Provide ongoing cybersecurity awareness training for students and staff to equip them with the knowledge to prevent attacks, such as phishing.
   
   
4. Ensure regular and secure backups of critical data: Perform regular backups of essential data and store them securely in case of cyber incidents like ransomware. This ensures that, if data is compromised, it can be restored quickly, minimizing downtime.
   
   
5. Adopt multi-factor authentication (MFA): Enforce Multi-Factor Authentication(MFA) for accessing sensitive systems or information to strengthen security. MFA adds an extra layer of protection by requiring users to verify their identity through more than one method, such as a password and a one-time code.
   
   
6. Deploy anti-malware tools: Use advanced anti-malware software to detect, block, and remove malicious programs. This helps protect institutional systems from viruses, ransomware, and other forms of malware that can compromise data security.
   
   
7. Monitor networks using intrusion detection systems (IDS): Implement IDS to monitor network traffic and detect suspicious activity. By identifying threats in real time, institutions can respond quickly to prevent breaches and minimize potential damage.
   
   
8. Conduct penetration testing: Regularly conduct penetration testing to simulate cyberattacks and assess the security of institutional networks. This proactive approach helps identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by actual attackers.
   
   
9. Collaborate with cybersecurity firms: Partner with cybersecurity experts to benefit from specialized knowledge and advanced security solutions. Collaboration provides access to the latest technologies, threat intelligence, and best practices to enhance the institution's overall cybersecurity posture.
   
   
10. Share best practices across institutions: Create forums for collaboration among educational institutions to exchange knowledge and strategies for cybersecurity. Sharing successful practices helps build a collective defense against common threats and improves security across the education sector.

‍

‍

Conclusion: 

‍

The increasing cyber threats to Indian educational institutions demand immediate attention and action. With vulnerabilities like data breaches, botnet activities, and outdated infrastructure, institutions must prioritize effective cybersecurity measures. By adopting proactive strategies such as regular software updates, multi-factor authentication, and incident response plans, educational institutions can mitigate risks and safeguard sensitive data. Collaborative efforts, awareness, and investment in cybersecurity will be essential to creating a secure digital environment for academia.

‍