E-challan scams

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.

Introduction

The European Union has fined the meta $ 1.3 billion for infringing the EU privacy laws by transferring the personal data of Facebook users to the United States. The EU fined Meta’s business in Ireland. As per the European Union, transferring Personal data to the US is a breach of the General data protection Regulation or European Union law on data protection and privacy.

GDPR Compliance

The terms of GDPR promise to gather users’ personal information legally and under strict conditions. And those who collect and manage personal data must protect users’ personal data from exploitation. The GDPR restricts an organisation’s capacity to transfer personal data outside the EU if the transfer is solely based on that body’s evaluation of the sufficiency of the personal data’s protection. Transfers should only be made where European authorities have determined that a third country, a territory within that third country, or an international organisation provides acceptable protection for data protection.

Violation by Meta

The punishment, announced by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, might be one of the most significant in the five years since the European Union passed the landmark General Data Protection Regulation. According to regulators, Facebook failed to comply with a 2020 judgment by the European Union’s top court that Facebook data transferred over the Atlantic was not sufficiently safeguarded from American espionage agencies. However, whether Meta will ever need to encrypt Facebook users’ data in Europe is still being determined. Meta announced it would appeal the ruling, launching a potentially legal procedure.

Simultaneously, European Union and American officials are negotiating a new data-sharing pact that would provide legal protections for Meta and scores of other companies to continue moving information between the US and Europe. This pact could overturn much of the European Union’s Monday ruling.

Article 46(1) GDPR Has been violated by the meta, And as per the Irish privacy.  

What is required by the GDPR before transferring personal information across national boundaries?

Personal data transfers to countries outside the European Economic Area are generally permitted if these nations are regarded to provide a sufficient degree of data protection. According to Article 45 of the GDPR, the European Commission evaluates the degree of personal data protection in third countries.

The European Union judgment demonstrates how government rules are upending the borderless way data has traditionally migrated. Companies are increasingly being pressed to store data within the country where it is acquired rather than allowing it to transfer freely to data centres around the world as a result of data-protection requirements, national security laws, and other regulations.

The US internet giant had previously warned that if forced to stop using SCCs (standard contractual clauses) without a proper alternative data transfer agreement in place, it would be compelled to shut down services such as Facebook and Instagram in Europe.

What will happen next for Facebook in Europe?

The ruling includes a six-month transition period before it must halt data flows, meaning the service will continue to operate in the meantime. (More specifically, Meta has been given a five-month transition period to freeze any future transfer of personal data to the United States and a six-month deadline to terminate the unlawful processing and/or storage of European user data it has previously transferred without a legitimate legal basis. Meta has also stated that it will appeal and appears to seek a stay of execution while it pursues its legal arguments in court.

Conclusion

The GDPR places restrictions on transferring personal data outside the European Union to third-party nations or international bodies to ensure that the GDPR’s level of protection for individuals is not jeopardised. But the meta violated the European Union’s privacy laws by the user’s personal information to the US. Under the compliance of GDPR, transferring and sending personal information to users intentionally is an offence. and presently, the personal data of Facebook users has been breached by the Meta, as they shared the information with the US.

Introduction

Smartphones have revolutionised human connectivity. In 2023, it was estimated that almost 96% of the global digital population is accessing the internet via their mobile phones and India alone has 1.05 billion users. Information consumption has grown exponentially due to the enhanced accessibility that these mobiles provide. These devices allow accessibility to information no matter where one is, and have completely transformed how we engage with the world around us, be it to skim through work emails while commuting, video streaming during breaks, reading an ebook at our convenience or even catching up on news at any time or place. Mobile phones  grant us instant access to the web and are always within reach. 

But this instant connection has its downsides too, and one of the most worrying of these is the rampant rise of misinformation. These tiny screens and our constant, on-the-go dependence on them can be directly linked to the spread of “fake news,” as people consume more and more content in rapid bursts, without taking the time to really process the same or think deeply about its authenticity. There is an underlying cultural shift in how we approach information and learning currently: the onslaught of vast amounts of “bite-sized information” discourages people from researching what they’re being told or shown. The focus has shifted from learning deeply to consuming more and sharing faster. And this change in audience behaviour is making us vulnerable to misinformation, disinformation and unchecked foreign influence.

The Growth of Mobile Internet Access 

More than 5 billion people are connected to the internet and web traffic is increasing rapidly. The developed countries in North America and Europe are experiencing mobile internet penetration at a universal rate.  Contrastingly, the developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are experiencing rapid growth in this penetration. The introduction of affordable smartphones and low-cost mobile data plans has expanded access to internet connectivity. 4G and 5G infrastructure development have further bridged any connectivity gaps. This widespread access to the mobile internet has democratised information, allowing millions of users to participate in the digital economy.  Access to educational resources while at the same time engaging in global conversations is one such example of the democratisation of information. This reduces the digital divide between diverse groups and empowers communities with unprecedented access to knowledge and opportunities.

The Nature of Misinformation in the Mobile Era 

Misinformation spread has become more prominent in recent times and one of the contributing factors is the rise of mobile internet. This instantaneous connection has made social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter) available on a single compact and portable device. These social media platforms enable users to share content instantly and to a wide user base, many times without verifying its accuracy. The virality of social media sharing, where posts can reach thousands of users in seconds, accelerates the spread of false information. This ease of sharing, combined with algorithms that prioritise engagement, creates a fertile ground for misinformation to flourish, misleading vast numbers of people before corrections or factual information can be disseminated. 

Some of the factors that are amplifying misinformation sharing through mobile internet are algorithmic amplification which prioritises engagement, the ease of sharing content due to instant access and user-generated content, the limited media literacy of users and the echo chambers which reinforce existing biases and spread false information. 

Gaps and Challenges due to the increased accessibility of  Mobile Internet 

Despite growing concerns about misinformation spread due to mobile internet, policy responses remain inadequate, particularly in developing countries. These gaps include: the lack of algorithm regulation, as social media platforms prioritise engaging content, often fueling misinformation. Inadequate international cooperation further complicates enforcement, as addressing the cross-border nature of misinformation has been a struggle for national regulations. 

Additionally, balancing content moderation with free speech remains challenging, with efforts to curb misinformation sometimes leading to concerns over censorship. 

Finally, a deficit in media literacy leaves many vulnerable to false information. Governments and international organisations must prioritise public education to equip users with the required skills to evaluate online content, especially in low-literacy regions.

CyberPeace Recommendations

Addressing misinformation via mobile internet requires a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach. 

• Governments should mandate algorithm transparency, ensuring social media platforms disclose how content is prioritised and give users more control. 
• Collaborative fact-checking initiatives between governments, platforms, and civil society could help flag or correct false information before it spreads, especially during crises like elections or public health emergencies. 
• International organisations should lead efforts to create standardised global regulations to hold platforms accountable across borders. 
• Additionally, large-scale digital literacy campaigns are crucial, teaching the public how to assess online content and avoid misinformation traps.

Conclusion

Mobile internet access has transformed information consumption and bridged the digital divide. At the same time, it has also accelerated the spread of misinformation. The global reach and instant nature of mobile platforms, combined with algorithmic amplification, have created significant challenges in controlling the flow of false information. Addressing this issue requires a collective effort from governments, tech companies, and civil society to implement transparent algorithms, promote fact-checking, and establish international regulatory standards. Digital literacy should be enhanced to empower users to assess online content and counter any risks that it poses.  

References

• https://www.statista.com/statistics/1289755/internet-access-by-device-worldwide/ 
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/01/are-smartphones-making-fake-news-and-disinformation-worse/
• https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/03/07/7-key-findings-about-mobile-phone-and-social-media-use-in-emerging-economies/ft_19-02-28_globalmobilekeytakeaways_misinformation/ 
• https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/slow-scroll-users-less-vigilant-about-misinformation-mobile-phones 

‍