Misinformation in Local Languages: How Vernacular Content Amplifies False Narratives in Communities

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.

‍

Introduction

‍

The banking and finance sector worldwide is among the most vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks. Moreover, traditional threats such as DDoS attacks, ransomware, supply chain attacks, phishing, and Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are becoming increasingly potent with the growing adoption of AI. It is crucial for banking and financial institutions to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to their cybersecurity posture, something that is possible only through a systematic approach to security. In this context, the Reserve Bank of India’s latest Financial Stability Report (June 2025) acknowledges that cybersecurity risks are systemic to the sector, particularly the securities market, and have to be treated as such. 

What the Financial Stability Report June 2025 Says

‍

The report notes that the increasing scale of digital financial services, cloud-based architecture, and interconnected systems has expanded the cyberattack surface across sectors.   It calls for building cybersecurity resilience by improving Security Operations Center (SOC) efficacy, undertaking “risk-based supervision”, implementing “zero-trust approaches”, and “AI-aware defense strategies”. It also recommends the implementation of graded monitoring systems, employing behavioral analytics for threat detection, building adequate skill through hands-on training, engaging in continuous learning and simulation-based exercises like Continuous Assessment-Based Red Teaming (CART), conducting scenario-based resilience drills, and establishing consistent incident reporting frameworks. In addition, it suggests that organizations need to adopt quantifiable benchmarks like SOC Efficacy and Cyber Capability Index to guarantee efficient governance and readiness.

Implications

‍

Firstly, even though the report doesn’t break new ground in identifying cyber risk,  it does sharpen its urgency and lays the groundwork for giving more weight to cybersecurity in macroprudential supervision. In the face of emerging threats, it positions cyberattacks as a systemic financial risk that can affect India’s financial stability with the same seriousness as traditional threats like NPAs and capital inadequacy. 

Secondly, by calling to “ensure cyber resilience”, it reflects the RBI’s dedication to  values-based compliance to cybersecurity policies where effectiveness and adaptability matter more than box-ticking. This approach caters to an organisation’s/ sector’s unique nature, governance requirements, and updates to rising risks. It checks not only if certain measures were used, but also if they were effective, through constant self-assessment, scenario-based training, cyber drills, dynamic risk management, and value-driven audits. In the face of a rapidly expanding digital transactions ecosystem with integration of new technologies such as AI, this approach is imperative to building cyber resilience. The RBI’s report suggests exactly this need for banks and NBFCs to update its parameters for resilience.

Conclusion 

‍

While the RBI’s 2016 guidelines focus on core cybersecurity concerns and has issued guidelines on IT governance, outsourcing, and digital payment security, none explicitly codify “AI-aware,” “zero-trust,” or a full “risk-based supervision” mechanism. The more recent emphasis on these concepts comes from the 2025 Financial Stability Report, which uses them as forward-looking policy orientations. How the RBI chooses to operationalize these frameworks is yet to be seen. Further,  RBI’s vision cannot operate in a silo. Cross-sector regulators like SEBI, IRDAI, and DoT must align on cyber standards and incident reporting protocols.

In the meanwhile, highly vulnerable sectors like education and healthcare, which have weaker cybersecurity capabilities, can take a leaf from RBI’s book by ensuring that cybersecurity is treated as a continuously evolving issue . Many institutions in these sectors are known to perform goals-based compliance through a simple checklist approach. Institutions that take the lead in implementing zero-trust, diversifying vendor dependencies, and investing in cyber resilience will not only meet regulatory expectations but build long-term competitive advantage.

References

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/adopt-risk-based-supervision-zero-trust-approach-to-curb-cyberfrauds-rbi/articleshow/122164631.cms?from=mdr-%20500
• https://paramountassure.com/blog/value-driven-cybersecurity/ 
• https://www.rbi.org.in/commonman/english/Scripts/Notification.aspx?Id=1721 ‍
• https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs//PublicationReport/Pdfs/0FSRJUNE20253006258AE798B4484642AD861CC35BC2CB3D8E.PDF

Starting on 16th February 2025, Google changed its advertisement platform program policy. It will permit advertisers to employ device fingerprinting techniques for user tracking. Organizations that use their advertising services are now permitted to use fingerprinting techniques for tracking their users' data. Originally announced on 18th December 2024, this rule change has sparked yet another debate regarding privacy and profits.

The Issue

Fingerprinting is a technique that allows for the collection of information about a user’s device and browser details, ultimately enabling the creation of a profile of the user. Not only used for or limited to targeting advertisements, data procured in such a manner can be used by private entities and even government organizations to identify individuals who access their services. If information on customization options, such as language settings and a user’s screen size, is collected, it becomes easier to identify an individual when combined with data points like browser type, time zone, battery status, and even IP address.

What makes this technique contentious at the moment is the lack of awareness regarding the information being collected from the user and the inability to opt out once permissions are granted.

This is unlike Google’s standard system of data collection through permission requests, such as accepting website cookies—small text files sent to the browser when a user visits a particular website. While contextual and first-party cookies limit data collection to enhance user experience, third-party cookies enable the display of irrelevant advertisements while users browse different platforms. Due to this functionality, companies can engage in targeted advertising.

This issue has been addressed in laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 (India), which mandate strict rules and regulations regarding advertising, data collection, and consent, among other things. One of the major requirements in both laws is obtaining clear, unambiguous consent. This also includes the option to opt out of previously granted permissions for cookies.

However, in the case of fingerprinting, the mechanism of data collection relies on signals that users cannot easily erase. While clearing all data from the browser or refusing cookies might seem like appropriate steps to take, they do not prevent tracking through fingerprinting, as users can still be identified using system details that a website has already collected. This applies to all IoT products as well. People usually do not frequently change the devices they use, and once a system is identified, there are no available options to stop tracking, as fingerprinting relies on device characteristics rather than data-collecting text files that could otherwise be blocked.

Google’s Changing Stance

According to Statista, Google’s revenue is largely made up of the advertisement services it provides (amounting to 264.59 billion U.S. dollars in 2024). Any change in its advertisement program policies draws significant attention due to its economic impact.

In 2019, Google claimed in a blog post that fingerprinting was a technique that “subverts user choice and is wrong.” It is in this context that the recent policy shift comes as a surprise. In response, the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office), the UK’s data privacy watchdog, has stated that this change is irresponsible. Google, however, is eager to have further discussions with the ICO regarding the policy change.

Conclusion

The debate regarding privacy in targeted advertising has been ongoing for quite some time. Concerns about digital data collection and storage have led to new and evolving laws that mandate strict fines for non-compliance.

Google’s shift in policy raises pressing concerns about user privacy and transparency. Fingerprinting, unlike cookies, offers no opt-out mechanism, leaving users vulnerable to continuous tracking without consent. This move contradicts Google’s previous stance and challenges global regulations like the GDPR and DPDP Act, which emphasize clear user consent.

With regulators like the ICO expressing disapproval, the debate between corporate profits and individual privacy intensifies. As digital footprints become harder to erase, users, lawmakers, and watchdogs must scrutinize such changes to ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of fundamental privacy rights

References

• https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/profit-over-privacy-google-gives-advertisers-more-personal-info-in-major-fingerprinting-u-turn
• https://www.ccn.com/news/technology/googles-new-fingerprinting-policy-sparks-privacy-backlash-as-ads-become-harder-to-avoid/
• https://www.emarketer.com/content/google-pivot-digital-fingerprinting-enable-better-cross-device-measurement
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/google-adopts-new-stance-on-device-fingerprinting-102ju7b
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/ico-consults-on-storage-and-access-cookies-guidance-102ju62
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm21g0052dno 
• https://www.techradar.com/features/browser-fingerprinting-explained
• https://fingerprint.com/blog/canvas-fingerprinting/
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/#:~:text=In%20the%20most%20recently%20reported,billion%20U.S.%20dollars%20in%202024

‍