#FactCheck - Viral Videos of Mutated Animals Debunked as AI-Generated

What are Decentralised Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)?

A Decentralised Autonomous Organisation or a DAO, is a unique take on democracy on the blockchain. It is a set of rules encoded into a self-executing contract (also known as a smart contract) that operates autonomously on a blockchain system. A DAO imitates a traditional company, although, in its more literal sense, it is a contractually created entity. In theory, DAOs have no centralised authority in making decisions for the system; it is a communally run system whereby all decisions (be it for internal governance or for the development of the blockchain system) are voted upon by the community members. DAOs are primarily characterised by a decentralised form of operation, where there is no one entity, group or individual running the system. They are self-sustaining entities, having their own currency, economy and even governance, that do not depend on a group of individuals to operate. Blockchain systems, especially DAOs are characterised by pure autonomy created to evade external coercion or manipulation from sovereign powers. DAOs follow a mutually created, agreed set of rules created by the community, that dictates all actions, activities, and participation in the system’s governance. There may also be provisions that regulate the decision-making power of the community.

Ethereum’s DAO’s White Paper described DAO as “The first implementation of a [DAO Entity] code to automate organisational governance and decision making.” Can be used by individuals working together collaboratively outside of a traditional corporate form.  It can also be used by a registered corporate entity to automate formal governance rules contained in corporate bylaws or imposed by law.”  The referred white paper proposes an entity that would use smart contracts to solve governance issues inherent in traditional corporations.  DAOs attempt to redesign corporate governance with blockchain such that contractual terms are “formalised, automated and enforced using software.”

Cybersecurity threats under DAOs

While DAOs offer increased transparency and efficiency, they are not immune to cybersecurity threats. Cybersecurity risks in DAO, primarily in governance, stem from vulnerabilities in the underlying blockchain technology and the DAO's smart contracts. Smart contract exploits, code vulnerabilities, and weaknesses in the underlying blockchain protocol can be exploited by malicious actors, leading to unauthorised access, fund manipulations, or disruptions in the governance process. Additionally, DAOs may face challenges related to phishing attacks, where individuals are tricked into revealing sensitive information, such as private keys, compromising the integrity of the governance structure. As DAOs continue to evolve, addressing and mitigating cybersecurity threats is crucial to ensuring the trust and reliability of decentralised governance mechanisms.

Centralisation/Concentration of Power

DAOs today actively try to leverage on-chain governance, where any governance votes or transactions are directly taken on the blockchain. But such governance is often plutocratic in nature, where the wealthy hold influences, rather than democracies, since those who possess the requisite number of tokens are only allowed to vote and each token staked implies that many numbers of votes emerge from the same individual. This concentration of power in the hands of “whales” often creates disadvantages for the newer entrants into the system who may have an in-depth background but lack the funds to cast a vote. Voting, presently in the blockchain sphere, lacks the requisite concept of “one man, one vote” which is critical in democratic societies.

Smart contract vulnerabilities and external threats

Smart contracts, self-executing pieces of code on a blockchain, are integral to decentralised applications and platforms. Despite their potential, smart contracts are susceptible to various vulnerabilities such as coding errors, where mistakes in the code can lead to funds being locked or released erroneously. Some of them have been mentioned as follows;

Smart Contracts are most prone to re-entrance attacks whereby an untrusted external code is allowed to be executed in a smart contract. This scenario occurs when a smart contract invokes an external contract, and the external contract subsequently re-invokes the initial contract. This sequence of events can lead to an infinite loop, and a reentrancy attack is a tactic exploiting this vulnerability in a smart contract. It enables an attacker to repeatedly invoke a function within the contract, potentially creating an endless loop and gaining unauthorised access to funds.

Additionally, smart contracts are also prone to oracle problems. Oracles refer to third-party services or mechanisms that provide smart contracts with real-world data. Since smart contracts on blockchain networks operate in a decentralised, isolated environment, they do not have direct access to external information, such as market prices, weather conditions, or sports scores. Oracles bridge this gap by acting as intermediaries, fetching and delivering off-chain data to smart contracts, enabling them to execute based on real-world conditions. The oracle problem within blockchain pertains to the difficulty of securely incorporating external data into smart contracts. The reliability of external data poses a potential vulnerability, as oracles may be manipulated or provide inaccurate information. This challenge jeopardises the credibility of blockchain applications that rely on precise and timely external data.

Sybil Attack: A Sybil attack involves a single node managing multiple active fake identities, known as Sybil identities, concurrently within a peer-to-peer network. The objective of such an attack is to weaken the authority or influence within a trustworthy system by acquiring the majority of control in the network. The fake identities are utilised to establish and exert this influence. A successful Sybil attack allows threat actors to perform unauthorised actions in the system.

Distributed Denial of Service Attacks: A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is a malicious attempt to disrupt the regular functioning of a network, service, or website by overwhelming it with a flood of traffic. In a typical DDoS attack, multiple compromised computers or devices, often part of a botnet (a network of infected machines controlled by a single entity), are used to generate a massive volume of requests or data traffic. The targeted system becomes unable to respond to legitimate user requests due to the excessive traffic, leading to a denial of service.

Conclusion

Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) represent a pioneering approach to governance on the blockchain, relying on smart contracts and community-driven decision-making. Despite their potential for increased transparency and efficiency, DAOs are not immune to cybersecurity threats. Vulnerabilities in smart contracts, such as reentrancy attacks and oracle problems, pose significant risks, and the concentration of voting power among wealthy token holders raises concerns about democratic principles. As DAOs continue to evolve, addressing these challenges is essential to ensuring the resilience and trustworthiness of decentralised governance mechanisms. Efforts to enhance security measures, promote inclusivity, and refine governance models will be crucial in establishing DAOs as robust and reliable entities in the broader landscape of blockchain technology.

References:

‍https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/sybil-attack/

‍https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/blockchain-security-understanding-vulnerabilities-and-mitigating-risks

‍https://medium.com/@RedStone_Finance/the-oracle-problem-and-its-implications-for-blockchains-c0c0ad9cf5a7

‍https://www.linkedin.com/posts/satish-kulkarni-bb96193_what-are-cybersecurity-risk-to-dao-and-how-activity-7048286955645677568-B3pV/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-is-ddosdistributed-denial-of-service/ Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO, Securities and Exchange Board, Release No. 81207/ July 25, 2017

‍https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10921-blockchain-based-decentralized-autonomous-organizations-daos-.html

Introduction 

The geographical world has physical boundaries, but the digital one has a different architecture and institutions are underprepared when it comes to addressing cybersecurity breaches. Cybercrime, which may lead to economic losses, privacy violations, national security threats and have psycho-social consequences,  is forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029, reaching an estimated cost of at least 6.4 trillion U.S. dollars (Statista). As cyber threats become persistent and ubiquitous, they are becoming a critical governance challenge. Lawmakers around the world need to collaborate on addressing this emerging issue.

Cybersecurity Governance and its Structural Elements

Cybersecurity governance refers to the strategies, policies, laws, and institutional frameworks that guide national and international preparedness and responses to cyber threats to governments, private entities, and individuals. Effective cybersecurity governance ensures that digital risks are managed proactively while balancing security with fundamental rights like privacy and internet freedom. It includes, but is not limited to :

1. Policies and Legal Frameworks: Laws that define the scope of cybercrime, cybersecurity responsibilities, and mechanisms for data protection. Eg: India’s National Cybersecurity Policy (NCSP) of 2013, Information Technology Act, 2000, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, EU’s Cybersecurity Act (2019), Cyber Resilience Act (2024), Cyber Solidarity Act (2025), and NIS2 Directive (2022), South Africa’s Cyber Crimes Act (2021), etc.
2. Regulatory Bodies: Government agencies such as data protection authorities, cybersecurity task forces, and other sector-specific bodies. Eg: India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Europe’s  European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), and others.
3. Public-Private Knowledge Sharing: The sharing of the private sector’s expertise and the government’s resources plays a crucial role in improving enforcement and securing critical infrastructure. This model of collaboration is followed in the EU, Japan, Turkey, and the USA. 
4. Research and Development: Apart from the technical, the cyber domain also includes military, politics, economy, law, culture, society, and other elements. Robust, multi-sectoral research is necessary for formulating international and regional frameworks on cybersecurity. 

Challenges to Cybersecurity Governance 

Governments face several challenges in securing cyberspace and protecting critical assets and individuals despite the growing focus on cybersecurity. This is because so far the focus has been on cybersecurity management, which, considering the scale of attacks in the recent past, is not enough. Stakeholders must start deliberating on the aspect of governance in cyberspace while ensuring that this process is multi-consultative. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). Prominent challenges which need to be addressed are: 

• Dynamic Threat Landscape: The threat landscape in cyberspace is ever-evolving.  Bad actors are constantly coming up with new ways to carry out attacks, using elements of surprise, adaptability, and asymmetry aided by AI and quantum computing. While cybersecurity measures help mitigate risks and minimize damage, they can’t always provide definitive solutions. E.g., the pace of malware development is much faster than that of legal norms, legislation, and security strategies for the protection of information technology (IT). (Efe and Bensghir 2019).
• Regulatory Fragmentation and Compliance Challenges: Different countries, industries, or jurisdictions may enforce varying or conflicting cybersecurity laws and standards, which are still evolving and require rapid upgrades. This makes it harder for businesses to comply with regulations, increases compliance costs, and jeopardizes the security posture of the organization. 
• Trans-National Enforcement Challenges: Cybercriminals operate across jurisdictions, making threat intelligence collection, incident response, evidence-gathering, and prosecution difficult.  Without cross-border agreements between law enforcement agencies and standardized compliance frameworks for organizations, bad actors have an advantage in getting away with attacks. 
• Balancing Security with Digital Rights: Striking a balance between cybersecurity laws and privacy concerns (e.g., surveillance laws vs. data protection) remains a profound challenge,  especially in areas of CSAM prevention and identifying terrorist activities. Without a system of checks and balances, it is difficult to prevent government overreach into domains like journalism, which are necessary for a healthy democracy, and Big Tech’s invasion of user privacy. 

The Road Ahead: Strengthening Cybersecurity Governance 

All domains of human life- economy, culture, politics, and society- occur in digital and cyber environments now. It follows naturally, that governance in the physical world translates into governance in cyberspace. It must be underpinned by features consistent with the principles of openness, transparency, participation, and accountability, while also protecting human rights. In cyberspace, the world is stateless and threats are rapidly evolving with innovations in modern computing. Thus, cybersecurity governance requires a global, multi-sectoral approach utilizing the rules of international law, to chart out problems, and solutions, and carry out detailed risk analyses. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). 

References

• https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1280009/cost-cybercrime-worldwide#statisticContainer
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1365/s43439-021-00045-4#citeas 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-policies#ecl-inpage-cybersecurity-strategy 

‍

Introduction:

Welcome to the third edition of our blog on digital forensics series. In our previous blog we discussed the difference between copying, cloning, and imaging in the context of Digital Forensics, and found out why imaging is a better process. Today we will discuss the process of evidence collection in Digital Forensics. The whole process starts with making sure the evidence collection team has all necessary tools required for the task.

Investigating Tools and Equipment:

Below are some mentioned tools that the team should carry with them for a successful evidence collection:

• Anti-static bags
• Faraday bags
• Toolkit having screwdrivers(nonmagnetic), scissors, pins, cutters, forceps, clips etc.
• Rubber gloves
• Incident response toolkit (Software)
• Converter/Adapter: USB, SATA, IDE, SCSI
• Imaging software
• Volatile data collection tools (FTK Imager, Magnet Forensics RAM Capture)
• Pens, permanent markers
• Storage containers
• Batteries
• Video cameras
• Note/sketch pads
• Blank storage media
• Write-Blocker device
• Labels
• Crime scene security tapes
• Camera

What sources of Data are necessary for Digital Evidence?

• Hard-Drive (Desktop, Laptop, External, Server)
• Flash Drive
• SD Cards
• Floppy Disks
• Optical Media (CD, DVD)
• CCTV/DVR
• Internal Storage of Mobile Device
• GPS (Mobile/Car)
• Call Site Track (Towers)
• RAM

‍

‍

Evidence Collection

The investigators encounter two primary types of evidence during the course of gathering evidence: non-electronic and electronic evidence.

The following approaches could be used to gather non-electronic evidence:

• In the course of looking into electronic crimes, recovering non-electronic evidence can be extremely important.  Be cautious to make sure that this kind of evidence is retrieved and kept safe. Items that may be relevant to a later review of electronic evidence include passwords, papers or printouts, calendars, literature, hardware and software manuals, text or graphical computer printouts, and photos.  These items should be secured and kept for further examination.
• They are frequently found close to the computer or other related hardware.  Locating, securing, and preserving all evidence is required by departmental procedures.

Three scenarios arise for the collection of digital evidence from computers: 

Situation 1: The desktop is visible, and the monitor is on.

• Take a picture of the screen and note the data that is visible. 
• Utilize tools for memory capturing to gather volatile data.
• Look for virtual disks. If so, gather mounted data's logical copies.
• Give each port and connection a label.
• Take a picture of them.
• Turn off network access to stop remote access.
• Cut off the power or turn it off.
• Locate and disconnect the hard drive by opening the CPU chassis.
• Take all evidence and place it in anti-magnetic (Faraday) bags.
• Deliver the evidence to the forensic lab.
• Keep the chain of custody intact.

Situation 2: The monitor is turned on, but it either has a blank screen (sleep mode) or an image for the screensaver.

• Make a small mouse movement (without pressing buttons). The work product should appear on the screen, or it should ask for a password.
• If moving the mouse does not result in a change to the screen, stop using the mouse and stop all keystrokes.
• Take a picture of the screen and note the data that is visible.
• Use memory capturing tools to gather volatile data (always use a write blocker to prevent manipulation during data collection).
• Proceed further in accordance with Situation 1.

Situation 3: The Monitor Is Off

• Write down the "off" status.
• After turning on the monitor, check to see if its status matches that of situations 1 or 2 above, and then take the appropriate action.
• Using a phone modem, cable, confirm that you are connected to the outside world. Try to find the phone number if there is a connection to the phone.
• To protect evidence, take out the floppy disks that might be there, package each disk separately, and label the evidence.  Put in a blank floppy disk or a seizure disk, if one is available. Avoid touching the CD drive or taking out CDs.
• Cover the power connector and every drive slot with tape.
• Note the serial number, make, and model.
• Take a picture of the computer's connections and make a diagram with the relevant cables.
• To enable precise reassembly at a later date, label all connectors and cable ends, including connections to peripheral devices. Put "unused" on any connection ports that are not in use.  Recognize docking stations for laptop computers in an attempt to locate additional storage media.
• All evidence should be seized and placed in anti-magnetic (Faraday) bags.
• All evidence should be seized and placed in anti-magnetic (Faraday) bags.
• Put a tag or label on every bag.
• Deliver the evidence to the forensic lab.
• Keep the chain of custody intact. 

Following the effective gathering of data, the following steps in the process are crucial: data packaging, data transportation, and data storage.

The following are the steps involved in data packaging, transportation, and storage:

Packaging:

• Label every computer system that is gathered so that it can be put back together exactly as it was found

When gathering evidence at a scene of crime,

• Before packing, make sure that every piece of evidence has been appropriately  labeled and documented.
• Latent or trace evidence requires particular attention, and steps should be taken to preserve it.
• Use paper or antistatic plastic bags for packing magnetic media to prevent static electricity. Do not use materials like regular plastic bags (instead use faraday bags) that can cause static electricity. 
• Be careful not to bend, fold, computer media like tapes, or CD-ROM.
• Make sure that the labels on every container used to store evidence are correct.

Transporting

• Make sure devices are not packed in containers and are safely fastened inside the car to avoid shock and excessive vibrations. Computers could be positioned on the floor of the car,and monitors could be mounted on the seat with the screen down .

When transporting evidence—

• Any electronic evidence should be kept away from magnetic sources.  Radiation transmitters, speaker magnets, and heated seats are a few examples of items that can contaminate electronic evidence.
• Avoid leaving electronic evidence in your car for longer than necessary. Electronic devices can be harmed by extremes in temperature, humidity.
• Maintain the integrity of the chain of custody while transporting any evidence.

Storing

• Evidence should be kept safe and away from extremes in humidity and temperature. Keep it away from dust, moisture, magnetic devices, and other dangerous impurities.  Be advised that extended storage may cause important evidence—like dates, times, and system configurations—to disappear. Because batteries have a finite lifespan, data loss may occur if they malfunction. Whenever the battery operated device needs immediate attention, it should be informed to the relevant authority (eg., the chief of laboratory, the forensic examiner, and the custodian of the evidence). 

CONCLUSION:

Thus, securing the crime scene to packaging, transportation and storage of data are the important steps in the process of collecting digital evidence in forensic investigations. Keeping the authenticity during the process along with their provenance is critical during this phase. It is also important to ensure the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings. This systematic approach is essential for effectively investigating and prosecuting digital crimes.

‍