Operation Power Off
Introduction
DDoS – Distributed Denial of Service Attack is one of the cyber-attacks which has been evolving at the fastest pace, the new technologies have created a blanket of vulnerability for the victim which allows the cyber criminals to stay under the radar and keep launching small scale high intensity cyber attacks. A distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack is a malicious attempt to disrupt the normal traffic of a targeted server, service, or network by overwhelming the target or its surrounding infrastructure with a flood of Internet traffic. DDoS attacks achieve effectiveness by utilizing multiple compromised computer systems as sources of attack traffic. Exploited machines can include computers and other networked resources such as IoT devices. From a high level, a DDoS attack is like an unexpected traffic jam clogging up the highway, preventing regular traffic from arriving at its destination.
Op Power Off
In a recent Operation by Law enforcement agencies known as Op Power Off, LEAs from United Kingdom, United States of America, Netherlands, Poland, and Germany joined hands to target the cybergroups committing such large-scale attacks which can paralyse the Internet become inaccessible for a large faction of netizens. The services collectively seized were by far the most popular DDoS booter services on the market, receiving top billing on search engines. One such service taken down had been used to carry out over 30 million attacks. As part of this action, seven administrators have been arrested so far in the United States and the United Kingdom, with further actions planned against the users of these illegal services. International police cooperation was central to the success of this operation as the administrators, users, critical infrastructure, and victims were scattered across the world. Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre coordinated the activities in Europe through its Joint Cybercrime Action Taskforce (J-CAT).
Participating Authorities
- United States: US Department of Justice (US DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
- United Kingdom: National Crime Agency (NCA)
- The Netherlands: National High Tech Crime Unit Landelijke Eenheid, Cybercrime team Midden-Nederland, Cybercrime team Noord-Holland and Cybercrime team Den Haag
- Germany: Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), Hanover Police Department (Polizeidirektion Hannover), Public Prosecutor’s Office Verden (Staatsanwaltschaft Verden)
- Poland: National Police Cybercrime Bureau (Biuro do Walki z Cyber-przestępczością)
Issue related to DDoS Attacks
DDoS booter services have effectively lowered the entry barrier into cybercrime: for a fee as low as EUR 10, any low-skilled individual can launch DDoS attacks with the click of a button, knocking offline whole websites and networks by barraging them with traffic. The damage they can do to victims can be considerable, crippling businesses financially and depriving people of essential services offered by banks, government institutions, and police forces. Emboldened by perceived anonymity, many young IT enthusiasts get involved in this seemingly low-level crime, unaware of the consequences that such online activities can carry. The influence of toolkits available on the dark net has made it easier for criminals to commit such crimes and at times even get away with it as well.
Recent examples of DDoS Attacks
- In February 2020, Amazon Web Services (AWS) suffered a DDoS attack sophisticated enough to keep its incident response teams occupied for several days also affecting customers worldwide.
- In February 2021, the EXMO Cryptocurrency exchange fell victim to a DDoS attack that rendered the organization inoperable for almost five hours.
- Recently, Australia experienced a significant, sustained, state-sponsored DDoS attack.
- Belgium also became a victim of a DDoS attack that targeted the country’s parliament, police services, and universities.
DDoS vs. DoS Attacks: What’s the Difference?
It’s important to avoid confusing a DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack with a DoS (denial of service) attack. Although only one word separates the two, these attacks vary significantly in nature.
- Strictly defined, a typical DDoS attack manipulates many distributed network devices between the attacker and the victim into waging an unwitting attack, exploiting legitimate behavior.
- A traditional DoS attack doesn’t use multiple, distributed devices, nor does it focus on devices between the attacker and the organization. These attacks also tend not to use multiple internet devices.
Conclusion
In this era of cyberspace, it is of paramount importance to maintain digital safety and security equivalent to physical safety, the cybercriminals will not stop at anything and can stoop to any level to target netizens and critical infrastructures in order to commit ransomware and malware attacks. As we can see DDoS-ing is taken seriously by law enforcement, at all levels of users, and are on the radar of law enforcement, be it a gamer booting out the competition out of a video game, or a high-level hacker carrying out DDoS attacks against commercial targets for financial gain.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
The photograph of a bridge allegedly in Mumbai, India circulated through social media was found to be false. Through investigations such as reverse image searches, examination of similar videos, and comparison with reputable news sources and google images, it has been found that the bridge in the viral photo is the Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay Bridge located in Qingdao, China. Multiple pieces of evidence, including matching architectural features and corroborating videos tell us that the bridge is not from Mumbai. No credible reports or sources have been found to prove the existence of a similar bridge in Mumbai.
Claims:
Social media users claim a viral image of the bridge is from Mumbai.
Fact Check:
Once the image was received, it was investigated under the reverse image search to find any lead or any information related to it. We found an image published by Mirror News media outlet, though we are still unsure but we can see the same upper pillars and the foundation pillars with the same color i.e white in the viral image.
The name of the Bridge is Jiaozhou Bay Bridge located in China, which connects the eastern port city of the country to an offshore island named Huangdao.
Taking a cue from this we then searched for the Bridge to find any other relatable images or videos. We found a YouTube Video uploaded by a channel named xuxiaopang, which has some similar structures like pillars and road design.
In reverse image search, we found another news article that tells about the same bridge in China, which is more likely similar looking.
Upon lack of evidence and credible sources for opening a similar bridge in Mumbai, and after a thorough investigation we concluded that the claim made in the viral image is misleading and false. It’s a bridge located in China not in Mumbai.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, after fact-checking it was found that the viral image of the bridge allegedly in Mumbai, India was claimed to be false. The bridge in the picture climbed to be Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay Bridge actually happened to be located in Qingdao, China. Several sources such as reverse image searches, videos, and reliable news outlets prove the same. No evidence exists to suggest that there is such a bridge like that in Mumbai. Therefore, this claim is false because the actual bridge is in China, not in Mumbai.
- Claim: The bridge seen in the popular social media posts is in Mumbai.
- Claimed on: X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook,
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
.webp)
Introduction
Social media has emerged as a leading source of communication and information; its relevance cannot be ignored during natural disasters since it is relied upon by governments and disaster relief organisations as a tool for disseminating aid and relief-related resources and communications instantly. During disaster times, social media has emerged as a primary source for affected populations to access information on relief resources; community forums offering aid resources and official government channels for government aid have enabled efficient and timely administration of relief initiatives.
However, given the nature of social media, misinformation risks during natural disasters has also emerged as a primary concern that severely hampers aid administration during natural disasters. The disaster-disinformation network offers some sensationalised influential campaigns against communities at their most vulnerable. Victims who seek reliable resources during natural calamities often reach out to inhospitable campaigns and may experience delayed or lack of access to necessary healthcare, significantly impacting their recovery and survival. This delay can lead to worsening medical conditions and an increased death toll among those affected by the disaster. Victims may lack clear information on the appropriate agencies to seek assistance from, causing confusion and delays in receiving help.
Misinformation Threat Landscape during Natural Disaster
During the 2018 floods in Kerala, it was noted that a fake video on water leakage from the Mullaperyar Dam created panic among the citizens and negatively impacted the rescue operations. Similarly, in 2017, reports emerged claiming that Hurricane Irma had caused sharks to be displaced onto a Florida highway. Similar stories, accompanied by the same image, resurfaced following Hurricanes Harvey and Florence. The disaster-affected nation may face international criticism and fail to receive necessary support due to its perceived inability to manage the crisis effectively. This lack of confidence from the global community can further exacerbate the challenges faced by the nation, leaving it more vulnerable and isolated in its time of need.
The spread of misinformation through social media severely hinders the administration of aid and relief operations during natural disasters since it hinders first responders' efforts to counteract and reduce the spread of misinformation, rumours, and false information and declines public trust in government, media, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who are often the first point of contact for both victims and officials due to their familiarity with the region and the community. In Moldova, it was noted that foreign influence has exploited the ongoing drought to create divisions between the semi-autonomous regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia and the central government in Chisinau. News coverage critical of the government leverages economic and energy insecurities to incite civil unrest in this already unstable region. Additionally, First responders may struggle to locate victims and assist them to safety, complicating rescue operations. The inability to efficiently find and evacuate those in need can result in prolonged exposure to dangerous conditions and a higher risk of injury or death.
Further, international aid from other countries could be impeded, affecting the overall relief effort. Without timely and coordinated support from the global community, the disaster response may be insufficient, leaving many needs unmet. Further, misinformation also impedes military, reducing the effectiveness of rescue and relief operations. Military assistance often plays a crucial role in disaster response, and any delays can hinder efforts to provide immediate and large-scale aid.
Misinformation also creates problems of allocation of relief resources to unaffected areas which resultantly impacts aid processes for regions in actual need. Following the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal, a Facebook post claimed that 300 houses in Dhading needed aid. Shared over 1,000 times, it reached around 350,000 people within 48 hours. The originator aimed to seek help for Ward #4’s villagers via social media. Given the average Facebook user has 350 contacts, the message was widely viewed. However, the need had already been reported on quakemap.org, a crisis-mapping database managed by Kathmandu Living Labs, a week earlier. Helping Hands, a humanitarian group was notified on May 7, and by May 11, Ward #4 received essential food and shelter. The re-sharing and sensationalisation of outdated information could have wasted relief efforts since critical resources would have been redirected to a region that had already been secured.
Policy Recommendations
Perhaps the most important step in combating misinformation during natural disasters is the increasing public education and the rapid, widespread dissemination of early warnings. This was best witnessed in the November 1970 tropical cyclone in southeastern Bangladesh, combined with a high tide, struck southeastern Bangladesh, leaving more than 300,000 people dead and 1.3 million homeless. In May 1985, when a comparable cyclone and storm surge hit the same area, local dissemination of disaster warnings was much improved and the people were better prepared to respond to them. The loss of life, while still high (at about 10,000), the numbers were about 3% of that in 1970. On a similar note, when a devastating cyclone struck the same area of Bangladesh in May 1994, fewer than 1,000 people died. In India, the 1977 cyclone in Andra Pradesh killed 10,000 people, but a similar storm in the same area 13 years later killed only 910. The dramatic difference in mortalities was owed to a new early-warning system connected with radio stations to alert people in low-lying areas.
Additionally, location-based filtering for monitoring social media during disasters is considered as another best practice to curb misinformation. However, agencies should be aware that this method may miss local information from devices without geolocation enabled. A 2012 Georgia Tech study found that less than 1.4 percent of Twitter content is geolocated. Additionally, a study by Humanity Road and Arizona State University on Hurricane Sandy data indicated a significant decline in geolocation data during weather events.
Alternatively, Publish frequent updates to promote transparency and control the message. In emergency management and disaster recovery, digital volunteers—trusted agents who provide online support—can assist overwhelmed on-site personnel by managing the vast volume of social media data. Trained digital volunteers help direct affected individuals to critical resources and disseminate reliable information.
Enhancing the quality of communication requires double-verifying information to eliminate ambiguity and reduce the impact of misinformation, rumors, and false information must also be emphasised. This approach helps prevent alert fatigue and "cry wolf" scenarios by ensuring that only accurate, relevant information is disseminated. Prioritizing ground truth over assumptions and swiftly releasing verified information or acknowledging the situation can bolster an agency's credibility. This credibility allows the agency to collaborate effectively with truth amplifiers. Prebunking and Debunking methods are also effective way to counter misinformation and build cognitive defenses to recognise red flags. Additionally, evaluating the relevance of various social media information is crucial for maintaining clear and effective communication.
References
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40399-9#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20misinformation%20can%20create%20unnecessary,impacting%20the%20rescue%20operations29.
- https://www.redcross.ca/blog/2023/5/why-misinformation-is-dangerous-especially-during-disasters
- https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blog/disinformation-during-natural-disasters-emerging-vulnerability
- https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-M dia-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf
Disclaimer:
This report is based on extensive research conducted by CyberPeace Research using publicly available information, and advanced analytical techniques. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions presented are based on the data available at the time of study and aim to provide insights into global ransomware trends.
The statistics mentioned in this report are specific to the scope of this research and may vary based on the scope and resources of other third-party studies. Additionally, all data referenced is based on claims made by threat actors and does not imply confirmation of the breach by CyberPeace. CyberPeace includes this detail solely to provide factual transparency and does not condone any unlawful activities. This information is shared only for research purposes and to spread awareness. CyberPeace encourages individuals and organizations to adopt proactive cybersecurity measures to protect against potential threats.
CyberPeace Research does not claim to have identified or attributed specific cyber incidents to any individual, organization, or nation-state beyond the scope of publicly observable activities and available information. All analyses and references are intended for informational and awareness purposes only, without any intention to defame, accuse, or harm any entity.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, CyberPeace Research is not liable for any errors, omissions, subsequent interpretations and any unlawful activities of the findings by third parties. The report is intended to inform and support cybersecurity efforts globally and should be used as a guide to foster proactive measures against cyber threats.
Executive Summary:
The 2024 ransomware landscape reveals alarming global trends, with 166 Threat Actor Groups leveraging 658 servers/underground resources and mirrors to execute 5,233 claims across 153 countries. Monthly fluctuations in activity indicate strategic, cyclical targeting, with peak periods aligned with vulnerabilities in specific sectors and regions. The United States was the most targeted nation, followed by Canada, the UK, Germany, and other developed countries, with the northwestern hemisphere experiencing the highest concentration of attacks. Business Services and Healthcare bore the brunt of these operations due to their high-value data, alongside targeted industries such as Pharmaceuticals, Mechanical, Metal, Electronics, and Government-related professional firms. Retail, Financial, Technology, and Energy sectors were also significantly impacted.
This research was conducted by CyberPeace Research using a systematic modus operandi, which included advanced OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence) techniques, continuous monitoring of Ransomware Group activities, and data collection from 658 servers and mirrors globally. The team utilized data scraping, pattern analysis, and incident mapping to track trends and identify hotspots of ransomware activity. By integrating real-time data and geographic claims, the research provided a comprehensive view of sectoral and regional impacts, forming the basis for actionable insights.
The findings emphasize the urgent need for proactive Cybersecurity strategies, robust defenses, and global collaboration to counteract the evolving and persistent threats posed by ransomware.
Overview:
This report provides insights into ransomware activities monitored throughout 2024. Data was collected by observing 166 Threat Actor Groups using ransomware technologies across 658 servers/underground resources and mirrors, resulting in 5,233 claims worldwide. The analysis offers a detailed examination of global trends, targeted sectors, and geographical impact.
Top 10 Threat Actor Groups:
The ransomware group ‘ransomhub’ has emerged as the leading threat actor, responsible for 527 incidents worldwide. Following closely are ‘lockbit3’ with 522 incidents and ‘play’ with 351. Other Groups are ‘akira’, ‘hunters’, ‘medusa’, ‘blackbasta’, ‘qilin’, ‘bianlian’, ‘incransom’. These groups usually employ advanced tactics to target critical sectors, highlighting the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures to mitigate their impact and protect organizations from such threats.
Monthly Ransomware Incidents:
In January 2024, the value began at 284, marking the lowest point on the chart. The trend rose steadily in the subsequent months, reaching its first peak at 557 in May 2024. However, after this peak, the value dropped sharply to 339 in June. A gradual recovery follows, with the value increasing to 446 by August. September sees another decline to 389, but a sharp rise occurs afterward, culminating in the year’s highest point of 645 in November. The year concludes with a slight decline, ending at 498 in December 2024 (till 28th of December).
Top 10 Targeted Countries:
- The United States consistently topped the list as the primary target probably due to its advanced economic and technological infrastructure.
- Other heavily targeted nations include Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Brazil, Spain, and India.
- A total of 153 countries reported ransomware attacks, reflecting the global scale of these cyber threats
Top Affected Sectors:
- Business Services and Healthcare faced the brunt of ransomware threat due to the sensitive nature of their operations.
- Specific industries under threats:
- Pharmaceutical, Mechanical, Metal, and Electronics industries.
- Professional firms within the Government sector.
- Other sectors:
- Retail, Financial, Technology, and Energy sectors were also significant targets.
Geographical Impact:
The continuous and precise OSINT(Open Source Intelligence) work on the platform, performed as a follow-up action to data scraping, allows a complete view of the geography of cyber attacks based on their claims. The northwestern region of the world appears to be the most severely affected by Threat Actor groups. The figure below clearly illustrates the effects of this geographic representation on the map.
Ransomware Threat Trends in India:
In 2024, the research identified 98 ransomware incidents impacting various sectors in India, marking a 55% increase compared to the 63 incidents reported in 2023. This surge highlights a concerning trend, as ransomware groups continue to target India's critical sectors due to its growing digital infrastructure and economic prominence.
Top Threat Actors Group Targeted India:
Among the following threat actors ‘killsec’ is the most frequent threat. ‘lockbit3’ follows as the second most prominent threat, with significant but lower activity than killsec. Other groups, such as ‘ransomhub’, ‘darkvault’, and ‘clop’, show moderate activity levels. Entities like ‘bianlian’, ‘apt73/bashe’, and ‘raworld’ have low frequencies, indicating limited activity. Groups such as ‘aps’ and ‘akira’ have the lowest representation, indicating minimal activity. The chart highlights a clear disparity in activity levels among these threats, emphasizing the need for targeted cybersecurity strategies.
Top Impacted Sectors in India:
The pie chart illustrates the distribution of incidents across various sectors, highlighting that the industrial sector is the most frequently targeted, accounting for 75% of the total incidents. This is followed by the healthcare sector, which represents 12% of the incidents, making it the second most affected. The finance sector accounts for 10% of the incidents, reflecting a moderate level of targeting. In contrast, the government sector experiences the least impact, with only 3% of the incidents, indicating minimal targeting compared to the other sectors. This distribution underscores the critical need for enhanced cybersecurity measures, particularly in the industrial sector, while also addressing vulnerabilities in healthcare, finance, and government domains.
Month Wise Incident Trends in India:
The chart indicates a fluctuating trend with notable peaks in May and October, suggesting potential periods of heightened activity or incidents during these months. The data starts at 5 in January and drops to its lowest point, 2, in February. It then gradually increases to 6 in March and April, followed by a sharp rise to 14 in May. After peaking in May, the metric significantly declines to 4 in June but starts to rise again, reaching 7 in July and 8 in August. September sees a slight dip to 5 before the metric spikes dramatically to its highest value, 24, in October. Following this peak, the count decreases to 10 in November and then drops further to 7 in December.
CyberPeace Advisory:
- Implement Data Backup and Recovery Plans: Backups are your safety net. Regularly saving copies of your important data ensures you can bounce back quickly if ransomware strikes. Make sure these backups are stored securely—either offline or in a trusted cloud service—to avoid losing valuable information or facing extended downtime.
- Enhance Employee Awareness and Training: People often unintentionally open the door to ransomware. By training your team to spot phishing emails, social engineering tricks, and other scams, you empower them to be your first line of defense against attacks.
- Adopt Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Think of MFA as locking your door and adding a deadbolt. Even if attackers get hold of your password, they’ll still need that second layer of verification to break in. It’s an easy and powerful way to block unauthorized access.
- Utilize Advanced Threat Detection Tools: Smart tools can make a world of difference. AI-powered systems and behavior-based monitoring can catch ransomware activity early, giving you a chance to stop it in its tracks before it causes real damage.
- Conduct Regular Vulnerability Assessments: You can’t fix what you don’t know is broken. Regularly checking for vulnerabilities in your systems helps you identify weak spots. By addressing these issues proactively, you can stay one step ahead of attackers.
Conclusion:
The 2024 ransomware landscape reveals the critical need for proactive cybersecurity strategies. High-value sectors and technologically advanced regions remain the primary targets, emphasizing the importance of robust defenses. As we move into 2025, it is crucial to anticipate the evolution of ransomware tactics and adopt forward-looking measures to address emerging threats.
Global collaboration, continuous innovation in cybersecurity technologies, and adaptive strategies will be imperative to counteract the persistent and evolving threats posed by ransomware activities. Organizations and governments must prioritize preparedness and resilience, ensuring that lessons learned in 2024 are applied to strengthen defenses and minimize vulnerabilities in the year ahead.
