Using incognito mode and VPN may still not ensure total privacy, according to expert

Introduction

‍

Recently, in April 2025, security researchers at Oligo Security exposed a substantial and wide-ranging threat impacting Apple's AirPlay protocol and its use via third-party Software Development Kit (SDK). According to the research, the recently discovered set of vulnerabilities titled "AirBorne" had the potential to enable remote code execution, escape permissions, and leak private data across many different Apple and third-party AirPlay-compatible devices. With well over 2.35 billion active Apple devices globally and tens of millions of third-party products that incorporate the AirPlay SDK, the scope of the problem is enormous. Those wireless-based vulnerabilities pose not only a technical threat but also increasingly an enterprise- and consumer-level security concern.

‍

Understanding AirBorne: What’s at Stake?

‍

AirBorne is the title given to a set of 23 vulnerabilities identified in the AirPlay communication protocol and its related SDK utilised by third-party vendors. Seventeen have been given official CVE designations. The most severe among them permit Remote Code Execution (RCE) with zero or limited user interaction. This provides hackers the ability to penetrate home networks, business environments, and even cars with CarPlay technology onboard.

‍

Types of Vulnerabilities Identified

AirBorne vulnerabilities support a range of attack types, including:

‍

• Zero-Click and One-Click RCE
• Access Control List (ACL) bypass
• User interaction bypass
• Local arbitrary file read
• Sensitive data disclosure
• Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks
• Denial of Service (DoS)

‍

Each vulnerability can be used individually or chained together to escalate access and broaden the attack surface.

‍

Remote Code Execution (RCE): Key Attack Scenarios

‍

‍

1. MacOS – Zero-Click RCE (CVE-2025-24252 & CVE-2025-24206) These weaknesses enable attackers to run code on a MacOS system without any user action, as long as the AirPlay receiver is enabled and configured to accept connections from anyone on the same network. The threat of wormable malware propagating via corporate or public Wi-Fi networks is especially concerning.
2. MacOS – One-Click RCE (CVE-2025-24271 & CVE-2025-24137) If AirPlay is set to "Current User," attackers can exploit these CVEs to deploy malicious code with one click by the user. This raises the level of threat in shared office or home networks.
3. AirPlay SDK Devices – Zero-Click RCE (CVE-2025-24132) Third-party speakers and receivers through the AirPlay SDK are particularly susceptible, where exploitation requires no user intervention. Upon compromise, the attackers have the potential to play unauthorised media, turn microphones on, or monitor intimate spaces.
4. CarPlay Devices – RCE Over Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or USB CVE-2025-24132 also affects CarPlay-enabled systems. Under certain circumstances, the perpetrators around can take advantage of predictable Wi-Fi credentials, intercept Bluetooth PINs, or utilise USB connections to take over dashboard features, which may distract drivers or listen in on in-car conversations.

‍

Other Exploits Beyond RCE

‍

AirBorne also opens the door for:

‍

• Sensitive Information Disclosure: Exposing private logs or user metadata over local networks (CVE-2025-24270).
• Local Arbitrary File Access: Letting attackers read restricted files on a device (CVE-2025-24270 group).
• DoS Attacks: Exploiting NULL pointer dereferences or misformatted data to crash processes like the AirPlay receiver or WindowServer, forcing user logouts or system instability (CVE-2025-24129, CVE-2025-24177, etc.).

‍

How the Attack Works: A Technical Breakdown

‍

AirPlay sends on port 7000 via HTTP and RTSP, typically encoded in Apple's own plist (property list) form. Exploits result from incorrect treatment of these plists, especially when skipping type checking or assuming invalid data will be valid. For instance, CVE-2025-24129 illustrates how a broken plist can produce type confusion to crash or execute code based on configuration.

A hacker must be within the same Wi-Fi network as the targeted device. This connection might be through a hacked laptop, public wireless with shared access, or an insecure corporate connection. Once in proximity, the hacker has the ability to use AirBorne bugs to hijack AirPlay-enabled devices. There, bad code can be released to spy, gain long-term network access, or spread control to other devices on the network, perhaps creating a botnet or stealing critical data.

‍

The Espionage Angle

‍

Most third-party AirPlay-compatible devices, including smart speakers, contain built-in microphones. In theory, that leaves the door open for such devices to become eavesdropping tools. While Oligo did not show a functional exploit for the purposes of espionage, the risk suggests the gravity of the situation.

‍

The CarPlay Risk Factor

‍

Besides smart home appliances, vulnerabilities in AirBorne have also been found for Apple CarPlay by Oligo. Those vulnerabilities, when exploited, may enable attackers to take over an automobile's entertainment system. Fortunately, the attacks would need pairing directly through USB or Bluetooth and are much less practical. Even so, it illustrates how networks of connected components remain at risk in various situations, ranging from residences to automobiles.

‍

How to Protect Yourself and Your Organisation

‍

1. Immediate Actions:

• Update Devices: Ensure all Apple devices and third-party gadgets are upgraded to the latest software version.
• Disable AirPlay Receiver: If AirPlay is not in use, disable it in system settings.
• Restrict AirPlay Access: Use firewalls to block port 7000 from untrusted IPs.
• Set AirPlay to “Current User” to limit network-based attack.

2. Organisational Recommendations:

• Communicate the patch urgency to employees and stakeholders.
• Inventory all AirPlay-enabled hardware, including in meeting rooms and vehicles.
• Isolate vulnerable devices on segmented networks until updated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AirBorne vulnerabilities illustrate that even mature systems such as Apple's are not immune from foundational security weaknesses. The extensive deployment of AirPlay across devices, industries, and ecosystems makes these vulnerabilities a systemic threat. Oligo's discovery has served to catalyse immediate response from Apple, but since third-party devices remain vulnerable, responsibility falls to users and organisations to install patches, implement robust configurations, and compartmentalise possible attack surfaces. Effective proactive cybersecurity hygiene, network segmentation, and timely patches are the strongest defences to avoid these kinds of wormable, scalable attacks from becoming large-scale breaches.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.oligo.security/blog/airborne
• https://www.wired.com/story/airborne-airplay-flaws/
• https://thehackernews.com/2025/05/wormable-airplay-flaws-enable-zero.html
• https://www.securityweek.com/airplay-vulnerabilities-expose-apple-devices-to-zero-click-takeover/
• https://www.pcmag.com/news/airborne-flaw-exposes-airplay-devices-to-hacking-how-to-protect-yourself
• https://cyberguy.com/security/hackers-breaking-into-apple-devices-through-airplay/

‍

A video has been going viral on social media in recent days in which Republic TV’s Editor-in-Chief and anchor Arnab Goswami can allegedly be heard using objectionable language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. While sharing the video, users are claiming that Arnab Goswami publicly made controversial remarks about the Prime Minister.

An investigation by CyberPeace Foundation found this claim to be completely false. Our probe revealed that the viral video is edited and is being circulated on social media with a misleading narrative. In the original video, Arnab Goswami was not making any personal statement; rather, he was referring to an old statement made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

‍

Viral Claim

‍

An Instagram user posted this video on 5 January 2026. In the video, a voice resembling Arnab Goswami is heard saying, “Ye jo Narendra Modi hain, ye chhe mahine baad ghar se nahi nikal paayenge aur Hindustan ke log inhein danda maarenge.”

(Translation: “This Narendra Modi will not be able to step out of his house after six months, and the people of India will beat him with sticks.”)

‍

The post link, its archive link, and screenshots can be seen below:

‍

• Instagram link: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTHrO7bk7Rf/?igsh=MThzbzBlcm82eWN0ZA%3D%3D
• Archive link: https://archive.ph/oaYsf

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the viral claim, we first examined the video using Google Lens search. During this process, we found a video published on 18 July 2024 on the official YouTube channel of Republic Bharat. The investigation revealed that this video is the longer (extended) version of the viral clip.

After carefully watching the full video, it became clear that Arnab Goswami was not making the statement himself. Instead, he was referring to a remark made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This confirms that the viral video was clipped and presented out of context.

The related video link can be seen below: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KlQV25-3l8s

‍

‍

‍

In the next step of the investigation, to verify whether Rahul Gandhi had indeed made such a statement, we conducted a customized keyword search on Google. During this, we found a video published on 6 February 2020 on the official YouTube channel of India Today.

In this video, recorded during a public event ahead of the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, Rahul Gandhi is seen sharply attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stating that if the Prime Minister fails to resolve the issue of unemployment in the country, the youth would beat him with sticks.

‍

The video link is given below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qCSA5nG9Y

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The CyberPeace Foundation’s investigation found this claim to be completely fake. The viral video is edited and is being shared in a misleading context. In the original video, Arnab Goswami was referring to an old statement made by Rahul Gandhi, which was selectively clipped and presented in a way that falsely suggests Arnab Goswami himself made objectionable remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

‍

Introduction

‍

‍"Artificial Intelligence may be the new charlatan in town"

‍

There is something almost wonderfully Indian about our current relationship with artificial intelligence. We are simultaneously afraid of it, fascinated by it, regulating it, funding it, using it and occasionally asking it to write the regulation meant to control it. In contrast, artificial intelligence seems to have figured out the oldest trick in the book: create an issue and then figure out how to solve it. Both the deepfake and the deepfake detector can be produced by it. It has the ability to  both generate and detect false information. It can both authenticate and mimic your voice. It can create a fake image and determine if it is fake. The machine ,in other words, is increasingly becoming both the burglar and the security system. We now refer to this as innovation.  Perhaps nothing better captures this peculiar moment than India’s most recent regulatory actions. The government has strengthened regulations pertaining to synthetic content such as requiring labelling and expediting the removal of illegal AI-generated information. After a legitimate government or court order, platforms are expected to take action within three hours, significantly reducing the removal window for some content. It took years for the internet to become ubiquitous. There are  now three hours for the law to become transitory. This is the first great paradox of AI governance. Technology operates at the speed of creation. Law operates at the speed of procedure. The citizen is seated between the two. 

‍

The Age of the Digital Double

‍

Indian courts are already dealing with this issue in more tangible ways. Cricket player Yuvraj Singh recently received relief from the Delhi High Court in a personality-rights case involving deepfakes created by AI and unlawful use of his identity. Courts have intervened against AI-generated and modified content in similar cases involving other public individuals. As a result, the law faces an odd dilemma: What exactly belongs to a person?  In the past, humans used comparatively stable identifiers to understand identity, such as a name, portrait, signature, or voice. That simplicity has been disrupted by AI. You can now detach your face from your body. You may separate your throat from your voice. It is possible to distinguish between your emotions and your expressions. It is possible to fabricate your political beliefs without engaging in politics. The legitimacy of a person's existence is being requested to be protected by the law, not just their property which is a far more difficult issue.

‍

When Artificial Intelligence Enters the Courtroom

‍

The irony becomes richer when AI enters the courtroom itself. Courts are creating guidelines for the use of  AI in the courtroom, just as they are being challenged to decide what happens when AI creates reality outside of it. Human primacy, accountability, transparency, data protection and judicial independence are highlighted in the Supreme Court’s proposed rules on the use of AI in courts. After all, there is one situation in which the justification that “the AI said so” should never be accepted. A hallucinated judgment is more than just a mistake in technology. It may turn into a mistake of authority in a legal system. A precedent can be confidently created by a machine. It can be cited with confidence by a lawyer and maybe then brought before a court for consideration.  All of a sudden, we have created a flawless little bureaucratic ecology where everyone has been duped despite no one's intention to do so. It's not inevitable that machines will turn malevolent, but rather that people will grow unduly reliant on machines that seem authoritative.

‍

The Great AI Contradiction

‍

We asked, "What can AI do?" for years.What can AI do for us, we then enquired? We are starting to wonder what AI might do to humans. The following query ought to be more challenging: When it does, who is at fault? Because AI systems don't cleanly fit into the legal frames we inherited, that question becomes very challenging. Developers, model providers, data providers, deployers, platforms, and end users are among them. There may occasionally be a middleman. There is a victim occasionally. Surprisingly, there can occasionally be multiple roles at once. This point is made in a recent working paper on AI and consumer rights in India: while current consumer protection laws may apply to AI harms, the conventional division of accountability among manufacturers, sellers, and service providers becomes challenging when AI systems involve a much more dispersed value chain.

‍

The Misunderstanding on AI’s Intelligence

‍

This is the point at which our sense for policy sometimes fails. We are concerned that AI will develop superintelligence. The more imminent threat can be much less dramatic. It is not necessary for AI to surpass human intelligence in order to wreak great harm. All it needs to do is become more convincing, quicker, and less expensive than human verification. Artificial general intelligence is not necessary for a fraudster to con an elderly person. A supercomputer is not necessary for a political manipulator to create a candidate's voice. A stalker can create an intimate deepfake without being conscious. A pupil can file a hallucinated case citation without the assistance of a robot attorney. Ordinary human wrongdoing magnified by incredible technical magnitude is what it is.

‍

The Real Test of AI Governance

‍

The number of standards we create, the number of committees we form, or the number of compliance boxes platforms check will not ultimately determine the success of AI regulation. Something considerably simpler will be used to measure it. Can the legal system advise a regular citizen where to go, what to do, and who will be held accountable when an AI system impersonates, defrauds, surveils, manipulates, or denies them a service?

The presence of accountability following failure, not the absence of failure.

Sometimes the most advanced piece of technology in the room is still an old-fashioned institution: a law that works, a regulator that responds, a court that understands the technology and a human being willing to take responsibility. Because if AI is going to be both the fire and the fire extinguisher, we should at least make sure that someone other than the machine owns the building.

‍

References

‍

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/government-tightens-deepfake-rules-mandates-ai-content-labels-and-three-hour-takedown-timeline/articleshow/133011656.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com&from=mdr 
• https://theleaflet.in/law-and-technology/explained-the-supreme-court-of-indias-draft-regulations-for-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-2026 
• https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/yuvraj-singh-personality-rights-ai-deepfakes-delhi-high-court/

‍