TRAI’s Consultation Paper on OTT Platforms

Executive Summary:

A viral picture on social media showing UK police officers bowing to a group of social media leads to debates and discussions. The investigation by CyberPeace Research team found that the image is AI generated. The viral claim is false and misleading.

Claims:

A viral image on social media depicting that UK police officers bowing to a group of Muslim people on the street.

Fact Check:

The reverse image search was conducted on the viral image. It did not lead to any credible news resource or original posts that acknowledged the authenticity of the image. In the image analysis, we have found the number of anomalies that are usually found in AI generated images such as the uniform and facial expressions of the police officers image. The other anomalies such as the shadows and reflections on the officers' uniforms did not match the lighting of the scene and the facial features of the individuals in the image appeared unnaturally smooth and lacked the detail expected in real photographs.

We then analysed the image using an AI detection tool named True Media. The tools indicated that the image was highly likely to have been generated by AI.

We also checked official UK police channels and news outlets for any records or reports of such an event. No credible sources reported or documented any instance of UK police officers bowing to a group of Muslims, further confirming that the image is not based on a real event.

Conclusion:

The viral image of UK police officers bowing to a group of Muslims is AI-generated. CyberPeace Research Team confirms that the picture was artificially created, and the viral claim is misleading and false.

• Claim: UK police officers were photographed bowing to a group of Muslims.
• Claimed on: X, Website
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

Introduction

This tale, the Toothbrush Hack, straddles the ordinary and the sophisticated; an unassuming household item became the tool for committing cyber crime. Herein lies the account of how three million electronic toothbrushes turned into the unwitting infantry in a cyber skirmish—a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) assault that flirted with the thin line that bridges the real and the outlandish.

In January, within the  Swiss borders, a story began circulating—first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. A legion of cybercriminals, with honed digital acumen, had planted malware on some three million electric toothbrushes. These devices, mere slivers of plastic and circuitry, became agents of chaos, converging their electronic requests upon the servers of an undisclosed Swiss firm, hurling that digital domain into digital blackout for several hours and wreaking an economic turmoil calculated in seven-figure sums.

The entire Incident

It was claimed that three million electric toothbrushes were allegedly used for a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. The article claimed that cybercriminals installed malware on the toothbrushes and used them to access a Swiss company's website, causing the site to go offline and causing significant financial loss. However, cybersecurity experts have questioned the veracity of the story, with some describing it as "total bollocks" and others pointing out that smart electric toothbrushes are connected to smartphones and tablets via Bluetooth, making it impossible for them to launch DDoS attacks over the web. Fortinet clarified that the topic of toothbrushes being used for DDoS attacks was presented as an illustration of a given type of attack and that no IoT botnets have been observed targeting toothbrushes or similar embedded devices.

The Tech Dilemma - IOT Hack

Imagine the juxtaposition of this narrative against our common expectations of technology: 'This example, which could have been from a cyber thriller, did indeed occur,' asserted the narratives that wafted through the press and social media. The story radiated outward with urgency, painting the image of IoT devices turned to evil tools of digital unrest. It was disseminated with such velocity that face value became an accepted currency amid news cycles. And yet, skepticism took root in the fertile minds of those who dwell in the domains of cyber guardianship.

Several cyber security and IOT experts, postulated that the information from Fortinet had been contorted by the wrench of misinterpretation. They and their ilk highlighted a critical flaw: smart electric toothbrushes are bound to their smartphone or tablet counterparts by the tethers of Bluetooth, not the internet, stripping them of any innate ability to conduct DDoS or any other type of cyber attack directly.

With this unraveling of an incident fit for our cyber age, we are presented with a sobering reminder of the threat spectrum that burgeons as the tendrils of the Internet of Things (IoT) insinuate themselves into our everyday fabrics. Innocuous devices, previously deemed immune to the internet's shadow, now stand revealed as potential conduits for cyber evil. The layers of impact are profound, touching the private spheres of individuals, the underpinning frameworks of national security, and the sinews that clutch at our economic realities. The viral incident was a misinformation. 

IOT Weakness

IoT devices bear inherent weaknesses for twin reasons: the oft-overlooked element of security and the stark absence of a means to enact those security measures. Ponder this problem Is there a pathway to traverse the security settings of an electric toothbrush? Or to install antivirus measures within the cooling confines of a refrigerator? The answers point to an unsettling simplicity—you cannot.

How to Protect 

Vigilance - What then might be the protocol to safeguard our increasingly digital space? It begins with vigilance, the cornerstone of digital self-defense. Ensure the automatic updating of all IoT devices when they beckon with the promise of a new security patch. 

Self Awareness - Avoid the temptation of public USB charging stations, which, while offering electronic succor to your devices, could also stand as the Trojan horses for digital pathogens. Be attuned to signs of unusual power depletion in your gadgets, for it may well serve as the harbinger of clandestine malware. Navigate the currents of public Wi-Fi with utmost care, as they are as fertile for data interception as they are convenient for your connectivity needs.

Use of Firewall - A firewall can prove stalwart against the predators of the internet interlopers. Your smart appliances, from the banality of a kitchen toaster to the novelty of an internet-enabled toilet, if shielded by this barrier, remain untouched, and by extension, uncompromised. And let us not dismiss this notion with frivolity, for the prospect of a malware-compromised toilet or any such smart device leaves a most distasteful specter.

Limit the use of IOT -  Additionally, and this is conveyed with the gravity warranted by our current digital era, resist the seduction of IoT devices whose utility does not outweigh their inherent risks. A smart television may indeed be vital for the streaming aficionado amongst us, yet can we genuinely assert the need for a connected laundry machine, an iron, or indeed, a toothbrush? Here, prudence is a virtue; exercise it with judicious restraint.

Conclusion 

As we step forward into an era where connectivity has shifted from a mere luxury to an omnipresent standard, we must adopt vigilance and digital hygiene practices with the same fervour as those for our corporal well-being. Let the toothbrush hack not simply be a tale of caution, consigned to the annals of internet folklore, but a fable that imbues us with the recognition of our role in maintaining discipline in a realm where even the most benign objects might be mustered into service by a cyberspace adversary.

References 

• https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/no-3-million-electric-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack/ 
• https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-home/3-million-smart-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack-but-they-could-have-been/
• https://www.securityweek.com/3-million-toothbrushes-abused-for-ddos-attacks-real-or-not/

https://www.cxodigitalpulse.com/hackers-use-electric-toothbrushes-in-massive-cyber-attack-results-in-huge-financial-loss/

Introduction:

Welcome to the second edition of our blog on Digital forensics series. In our previous blog we discussed what digital forensics is,  the process followed by the tools, and the subsequent challenges faced in the field. Further, we looked at how the future of Digital Forensics will hold in the current scenario.  Today, we will explore differences between 3 particular similar sounding terms that vary significantly in functionality when implemented: Copying, Cloning and Imaging.

In Digital Forensics, the preservation and analysis of electronic evidence are important for investigations and legal proceedings. Replication of the data and devices is one of the fundamental tasks in this domain, without compromising the integrity of the original evidence. 

Three primary techniques -- copying, cloning, and imaging -- are used for this purpose. Each technique has its own strengths and is applied according to the needs of the investigation.

In this blog, we will examine the differences between copying, cloning and imaging. We will talk about the importance of each technique, their applications and why imaging  is considered the best for forensic investigations.

Copying

Copying means duplicating data or files from one location to another. When one does copying, it implies that one is using standard copy commands. However, when dealing with evidence, it might be hard to use copy only. It is because the standard copy can alter the metadata and change the hidden or deleted data .

 The characteristics of copying include: 

• Speed: copying is simpler and faster,compared to cloning or imaging.
•  Risk: The risk involved in copying is that the metadata might be altered and all the data might be captured.

Cloning

It is the process where the transfer of the entire contents of a hard drive or a storage device is done  on another storage device. This process is known as cloning . This way, the cloning process captures both the active data and the unallocated space and hidden partitions, thus containing the whole structure of the original device. Cloning is generally used at the sector level of the device. Clones can be used as the working copy of a device .

Characteristics of cloning: 

•  bit-for-bit replication: cloning keeps the exact content and the whole structure of the original device. 
• Use cases: cloning is used when it is needed to keep the original device intact for further examination or a legal affair. 
•  Time consuming: Cloning is usually longer in comparison to simple copying since it involves the whole detailed replication. Though it depends on various factors like the size of the storage device, the speed of the devices involved, and the method of cloning.

Imaging:

It is the process of creating a forensic image of a storage device. A forensic image is a replica copy of every bit of data that was on the source device, this including the allocated, unallocated, and the available slack space .

 The image is then used for analysis and investigation, and the original evidence is left untouched. Images can’t be used as the working copies of a device.  Unlike cloning, which produces working copies, forensic images are typically used for analysis and investigation purposes and are not intended for regular use as working copies.

Characteristics of Imaging:

•  Integrity: Imaging ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence produced
•  Flexibility: Forensic image replicas can be mounted as a virtual drive to create image-specific mode for analysis of data without affecting the original evidence . 
• Metadata: Imaging captures metadata associated with the data, thus promoting forensic analysis.

Key Differences

• Purpose: Copying is for everyday use but not good for forensic investigations requiring data integrity. Cloning and imaging are made for forensic preservation.
• Depth of Replication: Cloning and imaging captures the entire storage device including hidden, unallocated, and deleted data  whereas copying may miss crucial forensic data.
• Data Integrity: Imaging and cloning keep the integrity of the original evidence thus making them suitable for legal and forensic use. Which is a critical aspect of forensic investigations.
• Forensic Soundness: Imaging is considered the best in digital forensics due to its comprehensive and non-invasive nature.
• Cloning is generally from one hard disk to another, where as imaging creates a compressed file that contains a snapshot of the entire hard drive or a specific partitions

Conclusion

Therefore, copying, cloning, and imaging all deal with duplication of data or storage devices with significant variations, especially in digital forensic. However, for forensic investigations, imaging is the most selected approach due to the correct preservation of the evidence state for any analysis or legal use . Therefore, it is essential for forensic investigators to understand these rigorous differences to avail of real and uncontaminated digital evidence for their investigation and legal argument.

‍