MGM Resorts shuts down IT systems after cyberattack
Introduction
MGM Resorts, which is an international company, has suffered an ongoing cyberattack which led to the shutdown of a number of its computer systems, including its website, in response to a cybersecurity issue. MGM Resorts International is in touch with external cybersecurity experts to resolve the issue since it has affected its entire Computer systems. MGM is a larger entity and operates thousands of hotel rooms across Las Vegas and the United States. MGM Resorts shared about the incident and posted that MGM recently identified a cybersecurity issue affecting some of the Company's systems. Promptly after detecting the issue, they quickly began an investigation with assistance from leading external cybersecurity experts. MGM has notified law enforcement and took prompt action to protect systems and data, including putting down certain systems. MGM further stated that the investigation is ongoing.
The issue
Basic operations such as the online reservation and booking system MGM have been affected and shut down due to the cybersecurity issue faced by a lot of visitors. Since earlier times, casino security has been the state of the art as they were very vulnerable to attacks by robbers and con artists. This is what we have also seen in a lot of movies. In today's time, con artists and robbers are now strengthened by cyber tactics. This is exactly what was seen in the case of the MGM attack.
MGM Resorts is home to best-in-class amenities and facilities for guests, but with the increase in tourist traction, the vulnerabilities and the scope of cyber attacks have also increased. This is also because of open wifis in the establishments and the transition of casinos to e-casinos, thus causing a major shift towards digital and technology-based intervention for better customer experience and streamlining a lot of operations.
How real is the threat?
As reported by MGM Resorts, the following systems were impacted in the cyber security attack:
- Slots Machines: The slot machines placed in the casino suddenly went offline and displayed an error message for the players. Some players who were already using the slot machines lost their bets and were unable to withdraw their winnings.
- Room Keys: Some of the guests reported that the room keys became unresponsive, and in some cases, the replacement keys were also inactive for some time, causing massive chaos at the reception.
- Booking Status: All the bookings in today's time are made online; this was one of the worst-hit segments of the cyber attacks. Most of the bookings made automatically were put on hold, and the confirmations could be made only from the hotel reception, thus causing massive cancelling of the bookings and both the hotel and customers losing out on money.
- MGM App: The official app of MGM Resorts was completely down, thus causing a situation of confusion and panic among the guests. The users also received notifications to speak to different customer care executives, but some of the numbers were unattentive and seemed to be operated by bad actors.
- Data breach: The main focus of the cyber attack was dedicated to committing a data breach. The attack led to the breach of personal data of most of the users registered on the app or on the system of MGM Resorts.
Conclusion
The cyber attack on the tourism industry is a major and growing concern for the industry and its customers. Seeing the volatility of the data and the regular inflow of personal information this makes the hotel's cyber security system a vulnerable choice for bad actors. The cyber attack was no less than a fire sale, where in all the segments of the services offered were impacted. Similar attacks were reported by MGM in 2019 and 2020, and subsequently, the safety measures were also deployed, but the bad actors have hit the resorts chain owners again, in such cases the most paramount defence is having a safe and regularly updated firewall, upskilling of staff for IT issues and attacks, active reporting and investigation mechanisms for assisting the LEAs. In the times of rising cyberattacks, one needs to be critical of their data management and digital footprints. The sooner we adopt safe, secure and resilient cyber hygiene practices, the safer our future will be.
References:
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/mgm-resorts-shuts-down-it-systems-after-cyberattack/
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/mgm-resorts-cybersecurity-incident-forces-system-outage.html
Related Blogs
Introduction
In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.
Brief Analysis of Prebunking
Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation.
The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it.
The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.
There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution.
Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions.
Brief Analysis of Debunking
Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem.
Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.
Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts. Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation. Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.
Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis
Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.
.png)
CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms
With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions.
- Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions.
- Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
- User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
- Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.
Conclusion
The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential. Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape.
References
- https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
- https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
- https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
- https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/
Executive Summary:
A manipulated image showing someone making an offensive gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is circulating on social media. However, the original photo does not display any such behavior towards the Prime Minister. The CyberPeace Research Team conducted an analysis and found that the genuine image was published in a Hindustan Times article in May 2019, where no rude gesture was visible. A comparison of the viral and authentic images clearly shows the manipulation. Moreover, The Hitavada also published the same image in 2019. Further investigation revealed that ABPLive also had the image.
Claims:
A picture showing an individual making a derogatory gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely shared across social media platforms.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the news, we immediately ran a reverse search of the image and found an article by Hindustan Times, where a similar photo was posted but there was no sign of such obscene gestures shown towards PM Modi.
ABP Live and The Hitavada also have the same image published on their website in May 2019.
Comparing both the viral photo and the photo found on official news websites, we found that almost everything resembles each other except the derogatory sign claimed in the viral image.
With this, we have found that someone took the original image, published in May 2019, and edited it with a disrespectful hand gesture, and which has recently gone viral across social media and has no connection with reality.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a manipulated picture circulating online showing someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been debunked by the Cyberpeace Research team. The viral image is just an edited version of the original image published in 2019. This demonstrates the need for all social media users to check/ verify the information and facts before sharing, to prevent the spread of fake content. Hence the viral image is fake and Misleading.
- Claim: A picture shows someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi
- Claimed on: X, Instagram
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Introduction
An age of unprecedented problems has been brought about by the constantly changing technological world, and misuse of deepfake technology has become a reason for concern which has also been discussed by the Indian Judiciary. Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the consequences of this quickly developing technology, citing a variety of issues from security hazards to privacy violations to the spread of disinformation. In general, misuse of deepfake technology is particularly dangerous since it may fool even the sharpest eye because they are almost identical to the actual thing.
SC judge expressed Concerns: A Complex Issue
During a recent speech, Supreme Court Justice Hima Kohli emphasized the various issues that deepfakes present. She conveyed grave concerns about the possibility of invasions of privacy, the dissemination of false information, and the emergence of security threats. The ability of deepfakes to be created so convincingly that they seem to come from reliable sources is especially concerning as it increases the potential harm that may be done by misleading information.
Gender-Based Harassment Enhanced
In this internet era, there is a concerning chance that harassment based on gender will become more severe, as Justice Kohli noted. She pointed out that internet platforms may develop into epicentres for the quick spread of false information by anonymous offenders who act worrisomely and freely. The fact that virtual harassment is invisible may make it difficult to lessen the negative effects of toxic online postings. In response, It is advocated that we can develop a comprehensive policy framework that modifies current legal frameworks—such as laws prohibiting sexual harassment online —to adequately handle the issues brought on by technology breakthroughs.
Judicial Stance on Regulating Deepfake Content
In a different move, the Delhi High Court voiced concerns about the misuse of deepfake and exercised judicial intervention to limit the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated deepfake content. The intricacy of the matter was highlighted by a division bench. The bench proposed that the government, with its wider outlook, could be more qualified to handle the situation and come up with a fair resolution. This position highlights the necessity for an all-encompassing strategy by reflecting the court's acknowledgement of the technology's global and borderless character.
PIL on Deepfake
In light of these worries, an Advocate from Delhi has taken it upon himself to address the unchecked use of AI, with a particular emphasis on deepfake material. In the event that regulatory measures are not taken, his Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which is filed at the Delhi High Court, emphasises the necessity of either strict limits on AI or an outright prohibition. The necessity to discern between real and fake information is at the center of this case. Advocate suggests using distinguishable indicators, such as watermarks, to identify AI-generated work, reiterating the demand for openness and responsibility in the digital sphere.
The Way Ahead:
Finding a Balance
- The authorities must strike a careful balance between protecting privacy, promoting innovation, and safeguarding individual rights as they negotiate the complex world of deepfakes. The Delhi High Court's cautious stance and Justice Kohli's concerns highlight the necessity for a nuanced response that takes into account the complexity of deepfake technology.
- Because of the increased complexity with which the information may be manipulated in this digital era, the court plays a critical role in preserving the integrity of the truth and shielding people from the possible dangers of misleading technology. The legal actions will surely influence how the Indian judiciary and legislature respond to deepfakes and establish guidelines for the regulation of AI in the nation. The legal environment needs to change as technology does in order to allow innovation and accountability to live together.
Collaborative Frameworks:
- Misuse of deepfake technology poses an international problem that cuts beyond national boundaries. International collaborative frameworks might make it easier to share technical innovations, legal insights, and best practices. A coordinated response to this digital threat may be ensured by starting a worldwide conversation on deepfake regulation.
Legislative Flexibility:
- Given the speed at which technology is advancing, the legislative system must continue to adapt. It will be required to introduce new legislation expressly addressing developing technology and to regularly evaluate and update current laws. This guarantees that the judicial system can adapt to the changing difficulties brought forth by the misuse of deepfakes.
AI Development Ethics:
- Promoting moral behaviour in AI development is crucial. Tech businesses should abide by moral or ethical standards that place a premium on user privacy, responsibility, and openness. As a preventive strategy, ethical AI practices can lessen the possibility that AI technology will be misused for malevolent purposes.
Government-Industry Cooperation:
- It is essential that the public and commercial sectors work closely together. Governments and IT corporations should collaborate to develop and implement legislation. A thorough and equitable approach to the regulation of deepfakes may be ensured by establishing regulatory organizations with representation from both sectors.
Conclusion
A comprehensive strategy integrating technical, legal, and social interventions is necessary to navigate the path ahead. Governments, IT corporations, the courts, and the general public must all actively participate in the collective effort to combat the misuse of deepfakes, which goes beyond only legal measures. We can create a future where the digital ecosystem is safe and inventive by encouraging a shared commitment to tackling the issues raised by deepfakes. The Government is on its way to come up with dedicated legislation to tackle the issue of deepfakes. Followed by the recently issued government advisory on misinformation and deepfake.
