TRAI’s Consultation Paper

Executive Summary

‍

A news video is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has resigned from his post in protest against the ongoing UGC-related controversy. Several users are sharing the clip while alleging that Kumar stepped down after opposing the issue. However, CyberPeace research has found the claim to be false. The researchrevealed that the video being shared is from 2022 and has no connection whatsoever with the UGC or any recent protests related to it. An old video has been misleadingly linked to a current issue to spread misinformation on social media.

‍

Claim:

‍

An Instagram user shared a video on January 26 claiming that Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had resigned. The post further alleged that the news was first aired on Republic channel and that Kumar had submitted his resignation to then-Governor Phagu Chauhan. The link to the post, its archived version, and screenshots can be seen below. (Links as provided)

• https://www.instagram.com/reel/DT-obW1EmRd/?igsh=MWV0YWFvNW9lbWJqbA%3D%3D 
• https://archive.ph/vBlv8 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check: 

‍

To verify the claim, CyberPeace first conducted a keyword-based search on Google. No credible or established media organisation reported any such resignation, clearly indicating that the viral claim lacked authenticity.

‍

‍

Further, the voiceover in the viral video states that Nitish Kumar handed over his resignation to Governor Phagu Chauhan. However, Phagu Chauhan ceased to be the Governor of Bihar in February 2023.  The current Governor of Bihar is Arif Mohammad Khan, making the claim in the video factually incorrect and misleading.

‍

‍

In the next step, keyframes from the viral video were extracted and reverse-searched using Google Lens. This led to the official YouTube channel of Republic Bharat, where the full version of the same video was found. The video was uploaded on August 9, 2022. This clearly establishes that the clip circulating on social media is not recent and is being shared out of context.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk-gC7KD3ao 

‍

‍

Conclusion

CyberPeace’s research confirms that the viral video claiming Nitish Kumar resigned over the UGC issue is false. The video dates back to 2022 and has no link to the current UGC controversy. An old political video has been deliberately circulated with a misleading narrative to create confusion on social media.

‍

Introduction

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) changed course just 48 hours after the directive dated December 1, 2025,  sparked controversy. On December 3, 2025, the department publicly reversed its directive to smartphone manufacturers to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app starting in March of the following year. The withdrawal marked the ending of a tumultuous, quick-paced event that highlighted how dynamic digital policy can be in a democracy. 

‍

The DoT explained its move in calculated terms. The government said that the first mandate was no longer necessary due to an abrupt increase in voluntary app downloads brought on by the public furore. The agency stated , “The mandate to install the app was meant to accelerate the process because the number of users has been growing rapidly.”

‍

The app in question is not new. When it was first introduced in 2023, it was intended to be a public safety where people could report suspicious calls, identify numbers registered in their name, block stolen devices using their IMEI, confirm the authenticity of their handset, and report fraudulent international calls that were disguised as Indian numbers. The platform has quietly expanded over the past two years with features like utilities to check mobile connections, as well as Chakshu for reporting fraud. When used freely, it has helped numerous people in navigating the increasingly complex web of online scams. 

‍

Balancing Protection and Personal Freedom

In India, there isn’t much precedent for requiring all phones to have a certain government backed app installed. While operators supported TRAI’s DND app in 2018 and emergency numbers were integrated during the pandemic, they did not go into the territory of compulsory pre-installation.

‍

Legal experts have time and again pointed out that although the government can control telecommunications for security reasons, any mandatory action pertaining to personal devices may be subject to constitutional review under the right to privacy, as stated in the Puttaswamy ruling. Not because the app is flawed in and of itself, but rather because every transition from voluntary adoption to mandatory compliance necessitates a higher standard of necessity, proportionality, and protections.  

‍

The Pulse of the Policy

The DoT’s stated rationale was clear: fake, duplicated or spoofed IMEIs represent a major cyber-security threat. India currently faces some of the world’s highest levels of SIM misuse, digital impersonation, online extortion, and device cloning crimes. Even a small fraction of compromised devices can do great harm in a nation with over a billion active mobile users.

‍

The DoT’s AI and Digital Intelligence Unit, a small seven-person team in charge of SIM security, fighting illicit telecom setups, and collaborating with financial regulators on quickly changing fraud patterns, issued the Sanchar Saathi directive as part of a larger set of security-focused measures. One order required platforms such as WhatsApp to make sure that web sessions were terminated after six hours and that accounts only functioned when the registered SIM card was present in the device.

‍

When taken as a whole, these orders indicate a clear strategic goal, the government is working to close systemic gaps that organised crime, particularly identity theft and device-level fraud, exploits. However, they also highlight the complex relationship between public opinion and security requirements. The government’s quick reversal in the Sanchar Saathi case demonstrated a crucial realization: digital safety mechanisms can only be effective when people feel educated, valued, and in charge. 

‍

CyberPeace Perspective & The Middle Path

CyberPeace stated that whenever a digital tool comes into contact with identity, data, or mobile access, public concern is inevitable. However, it is also emphasised that Sanchar Saathi is not a surveillance tool, instead can empower citizens. 

Even with the rolled back mandate, it is reaffirmed that cornerstones of digital trust are accountability, openness, audits, and unambiguous permissions. India can maintain both safety and rights through responsible implementation, ethical design, and open communication. 

‍

References

1. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/what-is-the-sanchar-saathi-app-why-is-the-government-mandating-its-pre-installation/article70350322.ece
2. https://theprint.in/opinion/sharp-edge/sanchar-saathi-app-modi-govt/2797917/ 
3. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2198110&reg=3&lang=2 
4. https://sancharsaathi.gov.in/SancharSaathiDocuments/ImportantDocuments/DoT%20issues%20directions%20for%20pre-installation%20of%20Sanchar%20Saathi%20App%20in%20mobile%20handsets%20to%20verify%20the%20genuineness%20of%20mobile%20handsets.pdf 
5. https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/sanchar-saathi-portal-a-solution-for-mobile-phone-theft-and-data-protection
6. https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/chakshu-and-dip-shielding-citizens-from-online-frauds
7. https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/financial-risk-indicator-launched-by-dot-to-strengthen-cybersecurity

‍

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.

‍