Digitally Altered Photo of Rowan Atkinson Circulates on Social Media

Introduction

The spread of misinformation online has become a significant concern, with far-reaching social, political, economic and personal implications. The degree of vulnerability to misinformation differs from person to person, dependent on psychological elements such as personality traits, familial background and digital literacy combined with contextual factors like information source, repetition, emotional content and topic. How to reduce misinformation susceptibility in real-world environments where misinformation is regularly consumed on social media remains an open question. Inoculation theory has been proposed as a way to reduce susceptibility to misinformation by informing people about how they might be misinformed. Psychological inoculation campaigns on social media are effective at improving misinformation resilience at scale.

Prebunking has gained prominence as a means to preemptively build resilience against anticipated exposure to misinformation. This approach, grounded in Inoculation Theory, allows people to analyse and avoid manipulation without prior knowledge of specific misleading content by helping them build generalised resilience. We may draw a parallel here with broad spectrum antibiotics that can be used to fight infections and protect the body against symptoms before one is able to identify the particular pathogen at play.

Inoculation Theory and Prebunking

Inoculation theory is a promising approach to combat misinformation in the digital age. It involves exposing individuals to weakened forms of misinformation before encountering the actual false information. This helps develop resistance and critical thinking skills to identify and counter deceptive content. 

Inoculation theory has been established as a robust framework for countering unwanted persuasion and can be applied within the modern context of online misinformation:

1. Preemptive Inoculation:  Preemptive inoculation entails exposing people to weaker kinds of misinformation before they encounter genuine erroneous information. Individuals can build resistance and critical thinking abilities by being exposed to typical misinformation methods and strategies.
2. Technique/logic based Inoculation: Individuals can educate themselves about typical manipulative strategies used in online misinformation, which could be emotionally manipulative language, conspiratorial reasoning, trolling and logical fallacies. Learning to recognise these tactics as indicators of misinformation is an important first step to being able to recognise and reject the same. Through logical reasoning, individuals can recognize such tactics for what they are: attempts to distort the facts or spread misleading information. Individuals who are equipped with the capacity to discern weak arguments and misleading methods may properly evaluate the reliability and validity of information they encounter on the Internet.
3. Educational Campaigns: Educational initiatives that increase awareness about misinformation, its consequences, and the tactics used to manipulate information can be useful inoculation tools. These programmes equip individuals with the knowledge and resources they need to distinguish between reputable and fraudulent sources, allowing them to navigate the online information landscape more successfully.
4. Interactive Games and Simulations: Online games and simulations, such as ‘Bad News,’ have been created as interactive aids to protect people from misinformation methods. These games immerse users in a virtual world where they may learn about the creation and spread of misinformation, increasing their awareness and critical thinking abilities.
5. Joint Efforts: Combining inoculation tactics with other anti-misinformation initiatives, such as accuracy primes, building resilience on social media platforms, and media literacy programmes, can improve the overall efficacy of our attempts to combat misinformation. Expert organisations and people can build a stronger defence against the spread of misleading information by using many actions at the same time.

‍

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

Implementation of the Inoculation Theory on social media platforms can be seen as an effective strategy point for building resilience among users and combating misinformation. Tech/social media platforms can develop interactive and engaging content in the form of educational prebunking videos, short animations, infographics, tip sheets, and misinformation simulations. These techniques can be deployed through online games, collaborations with influencers and trusted sources that help design and deploy targeted campaigns whilst also educating netizens about the usefulness of Inoculation Theory so that they can practice critical thinking. 

The approach will inspire self-monitoring amongst netizens so that people consume information mindfully. It is a powerful tool in the battle against misinformation because it not only seeks to prevent harm before it occurs, but also actively empowers the target audience. In other words, Inoculation Theory helps build people up, and takes them on a journey of transformation from ‘potential victim’ to ‘warrior’ in the battle against misinformation. Through awareness-building, this approach makes people more aware of their own vulnerabilities and attempts to exploit them so that they can be on the lookout while they read, watch, share and believe the content they receive online.

Widespread adoption of Inoculation Theory may well inspire systemic and technological change that goes beyond individual empowerment: these interventions on social media platforms can be utilized to advance digital tools and algorithms so that such interventions and their impact are amplified. Additionally, social media platforms can explore personalized inoculation strategies, and customized inoculation approaches for different audiences so as to be able to better serve more people. One such elegant solution for social media platforms can be to develop a dedicated prebunking strategy that identifies and targets specific themes and topics that could be potential vectors for misinformation and disinformation. This will come in handy, especially during sensitive and special times such as the ongoing elections where tools and strategies for ‘Election Prebunks’ could be transformational.

Conclusion

Applying Inoculation Theory in the modern context of misinformation can be an effective method of establishing resilience against misinformation, help in developing critical thinking and empower individuals to discern fact from fiction in the digital information landscape. The need of the hour is to prioritize extensive awareness campaigns that encourage critical thinking, educate people about manipulation tactics, and pre-emptively counter false narratives associated with information. Inoculation strategies can help people to build mental amour or mental defenses against malicious content and malintent that they may encounter in the future by learning about it in advance. As they say, forewarned is forearmed. 

References

• https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254
• https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/download/Inoculation-theory-and-Misinformation-FINAL-digital-ISBN-ebbe8.pdf

‍

Introduction

A policy, no matter how artfully conceived, is like a timeless idiom, its truth self-evident, its purpose undeniable, standing in silent witness before those it vows to protect, yet trapped in the stillness of inaction, where every moment of delay erodes the very justice it was meant to serve. This is the case of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which holds in its promise a resolution to all the issues related to data protection and a protection framework at par with GDPR and Global Best Practices. While debates on its substantive efficacy are inevitable, its execution has emerged as a site of acute contention. The roll-out and the decision-making have been making headlines since late July on various fronts. The government is being questioned by industry stakeholders, media and independent analysts on certain grounds, be it “slow policy execution”, “centralisation of power” or “arbitrary amendments”. The act is now entrenched in a never-ending dilemma of competing interests under the DPDP Act.

The change to the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, made possible by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, has become a focal point of debate. This amendment is viewed by some as an attack on weakening the hard-won transparency architecture of Indian democracy by substituting an absolute exemption for personal information for the “public interest override” in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

The Lag Ledger: Tracking the Delays in DPDP Enforcement 

As per a news report of July 28, 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Communications Technology has expressed its concern over the delayed implementation and has urged the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that data privacy is adequately ensured in the nation. In the report submitted to the Lok Sabha on July 24, the committee reviewed the government’s reaction to the previous recommendations and concluded that MeitY had only been able to hold nine consultations and twenty awareness workshops about the Draft DPDP Rules, 2025. In addition, four brainstorming sessions with academic specialists were conducted to examine the needs for research and development. The ministry acknowledges that this is a specialised field that urgently needs industrial involvement. Another news report dated 30th July, 2025, of a day-long consultation held where representatives from civil society groups, campaigns, social movements, senior lawyers, retired judges, journalists, and lawmakers participated on the contentious and chilling effects of the Draft Rules that were notified in January this year. The organisers said in a press statement the DPDP Act may have a negative impact on the freedom of the press and people’s right to information and the activists, journalists, attorneys, political parties, groups and organisations “who collect, analyse, and disseminate critical information as they become ‘data fiduciaries’ under the law.” 

The DPDP Act has thus been caught up in an uncomfortable paradox: praised as a significant legislative achievement for India’s digital future, but caught in a transitional phase between enactment and enforcement, where every day not only postpones protection but also feeds worries about the dwindling amount of room for accountability and transparency. 

The Muzzling Effect: Diluting Whistleblower Protections

The DPDP framework raises a number of subtle but significant issues, one of which is the possibility that it would weaken safeguards for whistleblowers. Critics argue that the Act runs the risk of trapping journalists, activists, and public interest actors who handle sensitive material while exposing wrongdoing because it expands the definition of “personal data” and places strict compliance requirements on “data fiduciaries.”One of the most important checks on state overreach may be silenced if those who speak truth to power are subject to legal retaliation in the absence of clear exclusions of robust public-interest protections.

Noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan has criticised the law for failing to protect whistleblowers, warning that “If someone exposes corruption and names officials, they could now be prosecuted for violating the DPDP Act.”

Consent Management under the DPDP Act

In June 2025, the National e-Governance Division (NeGD) under MeitY released a Business Requirement Document (BRD) for developing consent management systems under the DPDP Act, 2023. The document supports the idea of “Consent Manager”, which acts as a single point of contact between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries. This idea is fundamental to the Act, which is now being operationalised with the help of MeitY’s “Code for Consent: The DPDP Innovation Challenge.” The government has established a collaborative ecosystem to construct consent management systems (CMS) that can serve as a single, standardised interface between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries by choosing six distinct entities, such as Jio Platforms, IDfy, and Zoop. Such a framework could enable people to have meaningful control over their personal data, lessen consent fatigue, and move India’s consent architecture closer to international standards if it is implemented precisely and transparently. 

There is no debate to the importance of this development however, there are various concerns associated with this advancement that must be considered. Although effective, a centralised consent management system may end up being a single point of failure in terms of political overreach and technical cybersecurity flaws. Concerns are raised over the concentration of power over the framing, seeking, and recording of consent when big corporate entities like Jio are chosen as key innovators. Critics contend that the organisations responsible for generating revenue from user data should not be given the responsibility for designing the gatekeeping systems. Furthermore, the CMS can create opaque channels for data access, compromising user autonomy and whistleblower protections, in the absence of strong safeguards, transparency mechanisms and independent oversight. 

Conclusion

Despite being hailed as a turning point in India’s digital governance, the DPDP Act is still stuck in a delayed and unequal transition from promise to reality. Its goals are indisputable, but so are the conundrum it poses to accountability, openness, and civil liberties. Every delay increases public mistrust, and every safeguard that remains unsolved. The true test of a policy intended to safeguard the digital rights of millions lies not in how it was drafted, but in the integrity, pace, and transparency with which it is to be implemented. In the digital age, the true cost of delay is measured not in time, but in trust. CyberPeace calls for transparent, inclusive, and timely execution that balances innovation with the protection of digital rights.

References

• https://www.storyboard18.com/how-it-works/parliamentary-committee-raises-concern-with-meity-over-dpdp-act-implementation-lag-77105.htm 
• https://thewire.in/law/excessive-centralisation-of-power-lawyers-activists-journalists-mps-express-fear-on-dpdp-act
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-jio-idfy-meity-consent-management-systems-dpdpa/ ‍
• https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/centre-refuses-to-amend-dpdp-act-to-protect-journalists-whistleblowers-and-rti-activists

Executive Summary:

QakBot, a particular kind of banking trojan virus, is capable of stealing personal data, banking passwords, and session data from a user's computer. Since its first discovery in 2009, Qakbot has had substantial modifications.

C2 Server commands infected devices and receives stolen data, which is essentially the brain behind Qakbot's operations.Qakbot employs PEDLL (Communication Files), a malicious program, to interact with the server in order to accomplish its main goals. Sensitive data, including passwords or personal information, is taken from the victims and sent to the C2 server. Referrer files start the main line of communication between Qakbot and the C2 server, such as phishing papers or malware droppers. WHOIS data includes registration details for this server, which helps to identify its ownership or place of origin.

This report specifically focuses on the C2 server infrastructure located in India, shedding light on its architecture, communication patterns, and threat landscape.

Introduction:

QakBot is also known as Pinkslipbot, QuakBot, and QBot, capable of stealing personal data, banking passwords, and session data from a user's computer. Malware is bad since it spreads very quickly to other networks, affecting them like a worm.,It employs contemporary methods like web injection to eavesdrop on customer online banking interactions. Qakbot is a member of a kind of malware that has robust persistence techniques, which are said to be the most advanced in order to gain access to compromised computers for extended periods of time.
‍

Technical Analysis: 

The following IP addresses have been confirmed as active C2 servers supporting Qbot malware activity:

‍

Sample IP's

• 123.201.40[.]112
• 117.198.151[.]182
• 103.250.38[.]115
• 49.33.237[.]65
• 202.134.178[.]157
• 124.123.42[.]115
• 115.96.64[.]9
• 123.201.44[.]86
• 117.202.161[.]73
• 136.232.254[.]46

These servers have been operational in the past 14 days (report created in the month of Nov) and are being leveraged to perpetuate malicious activities globally.

URL/IP: 123.201.40[.]112

• inetnum: 123.201.32[.]0 - 123.201.47[.]255
• netname: YOUTELE
• descr: YOU Telecom India Pvt Ltd
• country: IN
• admin-c: HA348-AP
• tech-c: NI23-AP
• status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE 
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-16T06:43:19Z
• mnt-irt: IRT-IN-YOU
• source: APNIC
• irt: IRT-IN-YOU
• address: YOU Broadband India Limited
• address: 2nd Floor, Millennium Arcade
• address: Opp. Samarth Park, Adajan-Hazira Road
• address: Surat-395009,Gujarat
• address: India
• e-mail: abuse@youbroadband.co.in
• abuse-mailbox: abuse@youbroadband.co.in 
• admin-c: HA348-AP
• tech-c: NI23-AP
• auth: # Filtered
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-08T10:30:51Z
• source: APNIC
• person: Harindra Akbari
• nic-hdl: HA348-AP
• e-mail: harindra.akbari@youbroadband.co.in
• address: YOU Broadband India Limited
• address: 2nd Floor, Millennium Arcade
• address: Opp. Samarth Park, Adajan-Hazira Road
• address: Surat-395009,Gujarat
• address: India
• phone: +91-261-7113400
• fax-no: +91-261-2789501
• country: IN
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-10T11:01:47Z
• source: APNIC
• person: NOC IQARA
• nic-hdl: NI23-AP
• e-mail: network@youbroadband.co.in
• address: YOU Broadband India Limited
• address: 2nd Floor, Millennium Arcade
• address: Opp. Samarth Park, Adajan-Hazira Road
• address: Surat-395009,Gujarat
• address: India
• phone: +91-261-7113400
• fax-no: +91-261-2789501
• country: IN
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-08T10:18:09Z
• source: APNIC
• route: 123.201.40.0/24
• descr: YOU Broadband & Cable India Ltd.
• origin: AS18207
• mnt-lower: MAINT-IN-YOU
• mnt-routes: MAINT-IN-YOU
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2012-01-25T11:25:55Z
• source: APNIC

IP 123.201.40[.]112 uses the requested URL-path to make a GET request on the IP-address at port 80. "NOT RESPONDED" is the response status code for the request "C:\PROGRAM FILES GOOGLE CHROME APPLICATION CHROME.EXE" that was started by the process. 

Programs that retrieve their server data using a GET request are considered legitimate. The Google Chrome browser, a fully functional application widely used for web browsing, was used to make the actual request. It asks to get access to the server with IP 123.201.40[.]112 in order to collect its data and other resources. 

Malware uses GET requests to retrieve more commands or to send data back to the command and control servers. In this instance, it may be an attack server making the request to a known IP address with a known port number. Since the server has not replied to the request, the response status "NOT RESPONDED" may indicate that the activity was carried out with malicious intent.

This graph illustrates how the Qakbot virus operates and interacts with its C2 server, located in India and with the IP address 123.201.40[.]112. 

Impact

Qbot is a kind of malware that is typically distributed through hacked websites, malicious email attachments, and phishing operations. It targets private user information, including corporate logins or banking passwords. The deployment of ransomware: Payloads from organizations such as ProLock and Egregor ransomware are delivered by Qbot, a predecessor. Network Vulnerability: Within corporate networks, compromised systems will act as gateways for more lateral movement.

Proposed Recommendations for Mitigation

• Quick Action: To stop any incoming or outgoing traffic, the discovered IP addresses will be added to intrusion detection/prevention systems and firewalls.
• Network monitoring: Examining network log information for any attempts to get in touch with these IPs
• Email security: Give permission for anti-phishing programs.
• Endpoint Protection: To identify and stop Qbot infestations, update antivirus definitions.,Install tools for endpoint detection and response.
• Patch management: To reduce vulnerabilities that Qbot exploits, update all operating systems and software on a regular basis.
• Incident Response: Immediately isolate compromised computers.
• Awareness: Dissemination of this information to block the IP addresses of active C2 servers supporting Qbot malware activity has to be carried out.

Conclusion:

The discovery of these C2 servers reveals the growing danger scenario that Indian networks must contend with. To protect its infrastructure from future abuse, organizations are urged to act quickly and put the aforementioned precautions into place. 

Reference: 

• Threat Intelligence - ANY.RUN
• https://www.virustotal.com/gui
• https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/123.201.40.112/relations

‍