#FactCheck - Bangladeshi Migrant’s Arrest Misrepresented as Indian in Viral Video!

Introduction

On the precipice of a new domain of existence, the metaverse emerges as a digital cosmos, an expanse where the horizon is not sky, but a limitless scope for innovation and imagination. It is a sophisticated fabric woven from the threads of social interaction, leisure, and an accelerated pace of technological progression. This new reality, a virtual landscape stretching beyond the mundane encumbrances of terrestrial life, heralds an evolutionary leap where the laws of physics yield to the boundless potential inherent in our creativity. Yet, the dawn of such a frontier does not escape the spectre of an age-old adversary—financial crime—the shadow that grows in tandem with newfound opportunity, seeping into the metaverse, where crypto-assets are no longer just an alternative but the currency du jour, dazzling beacons for both legitimate pioneers and shades of illicit intent.

The metaverse, by virtue of its design, is a canvas for the digital repaint of society—a three-dimensional realm where the lines between immersive experiences and entertainment blur, intertwining with surreal intimacy within this virtual microcosm. Donning headsets like armor against the banal, individuals become avatars; digital proxies that acquire the ability to move, speak, and perform an array of actions with an ease unattainable in the physical world. Within this alternative reality, users navigate digital topographies, with experiences ranging from shopping in pixelated arcades to collaborating in virtual offices; from witnessing concerts that defy sensory limitations to constructing abodes and palaces from mere codes and clicks—an act of creation no longer beholden to physicality but to the breadth of one's ingenuity.

The Crypto Assets

The lifeblood of this virtual economy pulsates through crypto-assets. These digital tokens represent value or rights held on distributed ledgers—a technology like blockchain, which serves as both a vault and a transparent tapestry, chronicling the pathways of each digital asset. To hop onto the carousel of this economy requires a digital wallet—a storeroom and a gateway for acquisition and trade of these virtual valuables. Cryptocurrencies, with NFTs—Non-fungible Tokens—have accelerated from obscure digital curios to precious artifacts. According to blockchain analytics firm Elliptic, an astonishing figure surpassing US$100 million in NFTs were usurped between July 2021 and July 2022. This rampant heist underlines their captivating allure for virtual certificates. Empowers do not just capture art, music, and gaming, but embody their very soul.

Yet, as the metaverse burgeons, so does the complexity and diversity of financial transgressions. From phishing to sophisticated fraud schemes, criminals craft insidious simulacrums of legitimate havens, aiming to drain the crypto-assets of the unwary. In the preceding year, a daunting figure rose to prominence—the vanishing of US$14 billion worth of crypto-assets, lost to the abyss of deception and duplicity. Hence, social engineering emerges from the shadows, a sort of digital chicanery that preys not upon weaknesses of the system, but upon the psychological vulnerabilities of its users—scammers adorned in the guise of authenticity, extracting trust and assets with Machiavellian precision.

The New Wave of Fincrimes 

Extending their tentacles further, perpetrators of cybercrime exploit code vulnerabilities, engage in wash trading, obscuring the trails of money laundering, meander through sanctions evasion, and even dare to fund activities that send ripples of terror across the physical and virtual divide. The intricacies of smart contracts and the decentralized nature of these worlds, designed to be bastions of innovation, morph into paths paved for misuse and exploitation. The openness of blockchain transactions, the transparency that should act as a deterrent, becomes a paradox, a double-edged sword for the law enforcement agencies tasked with delineating the networks of faceless adversaries.

Addressing financial crime in the metaverse is Herculean labour, requiring an orchestra of efforts—harmonious, synchronised—from individual users to mammoth corporations, from astute policymakers to vigilant law enforcement bodies. Users must furnish themselves with critical awareness, fortifying their minds against the siren calls that beckon impetuous decisions, spurred by the anxiety of falling behind. Enterprises, the architects and custodians of this digital realm, are impelled to collaborate with security specialists, to probe their constructs for weak seams, and to reinforce their bulwarks against the sieges of cyber onslaughts. Policymakers venture onto the tightrope walk, balancing the impetus for innovation against the gravitas of robust safeguards—a conundrum played out on the global stage, as epitomised by the European Union's strides to forge cohesive frameworks to safeguard this new vessel of human endeavour.

The Austrian Example 

Consider the case of Austria, where the tapestry of laws entwining crypto-assets spans a gamut of criminal offences, from data breaches to the complex webs of money laundering and the financing of dark enterprises. Users and corporations alike must become cartographers of local legislation, charting their ventures and vigilances within the volatile seas of the metaverse.

Upon the sands of this virtual frontier, we must not forget: that the metaverse is more than a hive of bits and bandwidth. It crystallises our collective dreams, echoes our unspoken fears, and reflects the range of our ambitions and failings. It stands as a citadel where the ever-evolving quest for progress should never stray from the compass of ethical pursuit. The cross-pollination of best practices, and the solidarity of international collaboration, are not simply tactics—they are imperatives engraved with the moral codes of stewardship, guiding us to preserve the unblemished spirit of the metaverse.

Conclusion

The clarion call of the metaverse invites us to venture into its boundless expanse, to savour its gifts of connection and innovation. Yet, on this odyssey through the pixelated constellations, we harness vigilance as our star chart, mindful of the mirage of morality that can obfuscate and lead astray. In our collective pursuit to curtail financial crime, we deploy our most formidable resource—our unity—conjuring a bastion for human ingenuity and integrity. In this, we ensure that the metaverse remains a beacon of awe, safeguarded against the shadows of transgression, and celebrated as a testament to our shared aspiration to venture beyond the realm of the possible, into the extraordinary.

References 

• https://www.wolftheiss.com/insights/financial-crime-in-the-metaverse-is-real/ 
• https://gnet-research.org/2023/08/16/meta-terror-the-threats-and-challenges-of-the-metaverse/
• https://shuftipro.com/blog/the-rising-concern-of-financial-crimes-in-the-metaverse-aml-screening-as-a-solution/

‍

Executive Summary:

A new threat being uncovered in today’s threat landscape is that while threat actors took an average of one hour and seven minutes to leverage Proof-of-Concept(PoC) exploits after they went public, now the time is at a record low of 22 minutes. This incredibly fast exploitation means that there is very limited time for organizations’ IT departments to address these issues and close the leaks before they are exploited. Cloudflare released the Application Security report which shows that the attack percentage is more often higher than the rate at which individuals invent and develop security countermeasures like the WAF rules and software patches. In one case, Cloudflare noted an attacker using a PoC-based attack within a mere 22 minutes from the moment it was released, leaving almost no time for a remediation window. 

Despite the constant growth of vulnerabilities in various applications and systems, the share of exploited vulnerabilities, which are accompanied by some level of public exploit or PoC code, has remained relatively stable over the past several years and fluctuates around 50%. These vulnerabilities with publicly known exploit code, 41% was initially attacked in the zero-day mode while of those with no known code, 84% was first attacked in the same mode. 

Modus Operandi:

The modus operandi of the attack involving the rapid weaponization of proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits is characterized by the following steps:

• Vulnerability Identification: Threat actors bring together the exploitation of a system vulnerability that may be in the software or hardware of the system; this may be a code error, design failure, or a configuration error. This is normally achieved using vulnerability scanners and test procedures that have to be performed manually. 

• Vulnerability Analysis: After the vulnerability is identified, the attackers study how it operates to determine when and how it can be triggered and what consequences that action will have. This means that one needs to analyze the details of the PoC code or system to find out the connection sequence that leads to vulnerability exploitation. 

• Exploit Code Development: Being aware of the weakness, the attackers develop a small program or script denoted as the PoC that addresses exclusively the identified vulnerability and manipulates it in a moderated manner. This particular code is meant to be utilized in showing a particular penalty, which could be unauthorized access or alteration of data. 

• Public Disclosure and Weaponization: The PoC exploit is released which is frequently done shortly after the vulnerability has been announced to the public. This makes it easier for the attackers to exploit it while waiting for the software developer to release the patch. To illustrate, Cloudflare has spotted an attacker using the PoC-based exploit 22 minutes after the publication only. 

• Attack Execution: The attackers then use the weaponized PoC exploit to attack systems which are known to be vulnerable to it. Some of the actions that are tried in this context are attempts at running remote code, unauthorized access and so on. The pace at which it happens is often much faster than the pace at which humans put in place proper security defense mechanisms, such as the WAF rules or software application fixes. 

• Targeted Operations: Sometimes, they act as if it’s a planned operation, where the attackers are selective in the system or organization to attack. For example, exploitation of CVE-2022-47966 in ManageEngine software was used during the espionage subprocess, where to perform such activity, the attackers used the mentioned vulnerability to install tools and malware connected with espionage. 

Precautions: Mitigation

Following are the mitigating measures against the PoC Exploits: 

1. Fast Patching and New Vulnerability Handling 

• Introduce proper patching procedures to address quickly the security released updates and disclosed vulnerabilities. 

• Focus should be made on the patching of those vulnerabilities that are observed to be having available PoC exploits, which often risks being exploited almost immediately.

• It is necessary to frequently check for the new vulnerability disclosures and PoC releases and have a prepared incident response plan for this purpose. 

2. Leverage AI-Powered Security Tools 

•  Employ intelligent security applications which can easily generate desirable protection rules and signatures as attackers ramp up the weaponization of PoC exploits. 

• Step up use of artificial intelligence (AI) - fueled endpoint detection and response (EDR) applications to quickly detect and mitigate the attempts. 

• Integrate Artificial Intelligence based SIEM tools to Detect & analyze Indicators of compromise to form faster reaction. 

 3. Network Segmentation and Hardening 

• Use strong networking segregation to prevent the attacker’s movement across the network and also restrict the effects of successful attacks. 

• Secure any that are accessible from the internet, and service or protocols such as RDP, CIFS, or Active directory. 

• Limit the usage of native scripting applications as much as possible because cyber attackers may exploit them. 

4. Vulnerability Disclosure and PoC Management 

• Inform the vendors of the bugs and PoC exploits and make sure there is a common understanding of when they are reported, to ensure fast response and mitigation. 

• It is suggested to incorporate mechanisms like digital signing and encryption for managing and distributing PoC exploits to prevent them from being accessed by unauthorized persons. 

• Exploits used in PoC should be simple and independent with clear and meaningful variable and function names that help reduce time spent on triage and remediation. 

5. Risk Assessment and Response to Incidents 

• Maintain constant supervision of the environment with an intention of identifying signs of a compromise, as well as, attempts of exploitation. 

• Support a frequent detection, analysis and fighting of threats, which use PoC exploits into the system and its components. 

• Regularly communicate with security researchers and vendors to understand the existing threats and how to prevent them.

Conclusion:

The rapid process of monetization of Proof of Concept (POC) exploits is one of the most innovative and constantly expanding global threats to cybersecurity at the present moment. Cyber security experts must react quickly while applying a patch, incorporate AI to their security tools, efficiently subdivide their networks and always heed their vulnerability announcements. Stronger incident response plan would aid in handling these kinds of menaces. Hence, applying measures mentioned above, the organizations will be able to prevent the acceleration of turning PoC exploits into weapons and the probability of neutral affecting cyber attacks. 

Reference:

https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/vulnerability-disclosure-is-positive/

https://www.uptycs.com/blog/new-poc-exploit-backdoor-malware

https://www.balbix.com/insights/attack-vectors-and-breach-methods/

https://blog.cloudflare.com/application-security-report-2024-update

‍

The World Economic Forum reported that AI-generated misinformation and disinformation are the second most likely threat to present a material crisis on a global scale in 2024 at 53% (Sept. 2023). Artificial intelligence is automating the creation of fake news at a rate disproportionate to its fact-checking. It is spurring an explosion of web content mimicking factual articles that instead disseminate false information about grave themes such as elections, wars and natural disasters. 

According to a report by the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a Canadian think tank, the most prevalent effect of Generative AI is the ability to flood the information ecosystem with misleading and factually-incorrect content. As reported by Democracy Reporting International during the 2024 elections of the European Union, Google's Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, and Microsoft’s AI interface ‘CoPilot’ were inaccurate one-third of the time when engaged for any queries regarding the election data.   Therefore, a need for an innovative regulatory approach like regulatory sandboxes which can address these challenges while encouraging responsible AI innovation is desired.

What Is AI-driven Misinformation?

False or misleading information created, amplified, or spread using artificial intelligence technologies is AI-driven misinformation. Machine learning models are leveraged to automate and scale the creation of false and deceptive content. Some examples are deep fakes, AI-generated news articles, and bots that amplify false narratives on social media.

The biggest challenge is in the detection and management of AI-driven misinformation. It is difficult to distinguish AI-generated content from authentic content, especially as these technologies advance rapidly. 

AI-driven misinformation can influence elections, public health, and social stability by spreading false or misleading information. While public adoption of the technology has undoubtedly been rapid, it is yet to achieve true acceptance and actually fulfill its potential in a positive manner because there is widespread cynicism about the technology - and rightly so. The general public sentiment about AI is laced with concern and doubt regarding the technology’s trustworthiness, mainly due to the absence of a regulatory framework maturing on par with the technological development. 

Regulatory Sandboxes: An Overview

Regulatory sandboxes refer to regulatory tools that allow businesses to test and experiment with innovative products, services or businesses under the supervision of a regulator for a limited period. They engage by creating a controlled environment where regulators allow businesses to test new technologies or business models with relaxed regulations.

Regulatory sandboxes have been in use for many industries and the most recent example is their use in sectors like fintech, such as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority sandbox. These models have been known to encourage innovation while allowing regulators to understand emerging risks. Lessons from the fintech sector show that the benefits of regulatory sandboxes include facilitating firm financing and market entry and increasing speed-to-market by reducing administrative and transaction costs. For regulators, testing in sandboxes informs policy-making and regulatory processes. Looking at the success in the fintech industry, regulatory sandboxes could be adapted to AI, particularly for overseeing technologies that have the potential to generate or spread misinformation.

The Role of Regulatory Sandboxes in Addressing AI Misinformation

Regulatory sandboxes can be used to test AI tools designed to identify or flag misinformation without the risks associated with immediate, wide-scale implementation. Stakeholders like AI developers, social media platforms, and regulators work in collaboration within the sandbox to refine the detection algorithms and evaluate their effectiveness as content moderation tools.

These sandboxes can help balance the need for innovation in AI and the necessity of protecting the public from harmful misinformation. They allow the creation of a flexible and adaptive framework capable of evolving with technological advancements and fostering transparency between AI developers and regulators. This would lead to more informed policymaking and building public trust in AI applications.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations 

Regulatory sandboxes offer a mechanism to predict solutions that will help to regulate the misinformation that AI tech creates. Some policy recommendations are as follows: 

1. Create guidelines for a global standard for including regulatory sandboxes that can be adapted locally and are useful in ensuring consistency in tackling AI-driven misinformation.
2. Regulators can propose to offer incentives to companies that participate in sandboxes. This would encourage innovation in developing anti-misinformation tools, which could include tax breaks or grants.
3. Awareness campaigns can help in educating the public about the risks of AI-driven misinformation and the role of regulatory sandboxes can help manage public expectations.
4. Periodic and regular reviews and updates to the sandbox frameworks should be conducted to keep pace with advancements in AI technology and emerging forms of misinformation should be emphasized.

‍

Conclusion and the Challenges for Regulatory Frameworks

Regulatory sandboxes offer a promising pathway to counter the challenges that AI-driven misinformation poses while fostering innovation. By providing a controlled environment for testing new AI tools, these sandboxes can help refine technologies aimed at detecting and mitigating false information. This approach ensures that AI development aligns with societal needs and regulatory standards, fostering greater trust and transparency. With the right support and ongoing adaptations, regulatory sandboxes can become vital in countering the spread of AI-generated misinformation, paving the way for a more secure and informed digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/on-the-importance-of-regulatory-sandboxes-in-artificial-intelligence/article68176084.ece
• https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/regulatory-sandboxes-in-artificial-intelligence_8f80a0e6-en.html
• https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/
• https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/global/publications/chatbot-audit#Conclusions

‍