#FactCheck: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran

Introduction

With mobile phones at the centre of our working and personal lives, the SIM card, which was once just a plain chip that links phones with networks, has turned into a vital component of our online identity, SIM cloning has become a sneaky but powerful cyber-attack, where attackers are able to subvert multi-factor authentication (MFA), intercept sensitive messages, and empty bank accounts, frequently without the victim's immediate awareness. As threat actors are becoming more sophisticated, knowing the process, effects, and prevention of SIM cloning is essential for security professionals, telecom operators, and individuals alike.

Understanding SIM Cloning

SIM cloning is the act of making an exact copy of a victim's original SIM card. After cloning, the attacker's phone acts like the victim's, receiving calls, messages, and OTPs. This allows for a variety of cybercrimes, ranging from unauthorised financial transactions to social media account hijacking. The attacker virtually impersonates the victim, often leading to disastrous outcomes.

The cloning can be executed through various means:

● Phishing or Social Engineering: The attack compels the victim or a mobile carrier into divulging personal information or requesting a replacement SIM.

● SIM Swap Requests: Attackers use fake IDs or stolen credentials to make telecom providers port the victim's number to a new SIM.

● SS7 Protocol Exploitation: Certain sophisticated attacks target weaknesses in the Signalling System No. 7 (SS7) protocol employed by cellular networks to communicate.

● Hardware based SIM Cloning: Although uncommon, experienced attackers will clone SIMs through the use of specialized hardware and malware that steals authentication keys.

The Real-World Consequences

The harm inflicted by SIM cloning is systemic as well as personal. The victims are deprived of their phones and online accounts, realising the breach only when improper dealings or login attempts have occurred. The FBI reported over $50 million loss in 2023 from crimes associated with SIM, most of which involved cryptocurrency account and high net-worth persons.

Closer to home, Indian entrepreneurs, journalists, and fintech users have reported losing access to their numbers, only to have their WhatsApp, UPI, and banking apps taken over. In a few instances, the attackers even contacted contacts, posing as the victim to scam others.

Why the Threat Is Growing

Dependence on SMS-based OTPs is still a core vulnerability. Even as there are attempts to move towards app-based two-factor authentication (2FA), most banking, government, and e-commerce websites continue to employ SMS as their main authentication method. This reliance provides an entry point for attackers who can replicate a SIM and obtain OTPs without detection.

Vulnerabilities in telecom infrastructure are also a part of the issue. Insider attacks at telecom operators, where malicious employees handle fraud SIM swap requests, also keep cropping up. On top of that, most users are not even aware of what exactly SIM cloning is or how to identify it, leaving attackers with a head start.

Very often, the victims are only aware that their SIM has been cloned when they lose mobile service or notice unusual activity on their accounts. Red flags include loss of signal, failure to send or receive messages, and inability to receive OTPs. Alerts on password changes or unusual login attempts must never be taken lightly, particularly if this is coupled with loss of mobile service.

How Users Can Protect Themselves

● Use A Strong SIM Pin: This protects your SIM from access by unauthorized users should your phone be lost or stolen.

● Secure Personal Information: Don't post sensitive personal information online that can have a place in social engineering.

● Notify your Carrier of Suspicious Activity: If your phone suddenly has lost service or is behaving strangely, contact your mobile operator immediately.

● Register for Telecom Alerts: Many providers offer alerts to SIM swap or porting requests that are useful to preliminarily detect a possible takeover.

● Verify SIM card status using Sanchar Saathi: Visit [https://sancharsaathi.gov.in](https://sancharsaathi.gov.in) to check how many mobile numbers are issued using your ID. This government portal allows you to identify unauthorized or unknown SIM cards, helping prevent SIM swapping fraud. You can also request to block suspicious numbers linked to your identity.

Conclusion

SIM cloning is not a retrograde nod to vintage cybercrime; it's an effective method of exploitation, especially where there's a strong presence of SMS-based authentication. The attack vector is simple, but the damage it causes can be profound, both financial and reputational. With telecommunication networks forming the backbone of digital identity, users, regulators, and telecom service providers have to move in tandem. For the users, awareness is the best protection. For Telecoms, security must be a baseline requirement, not a value-add option. It's time to redefine mobile security, before your identity is in anyone else's hands.

References

● https://www.trai.gov.in/faqcategory/mobile-number-portability

● https://www.cert-in.org.in/PDF/Digital_Threat_Report_2024.pdf

● https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2022/PSA220208/

● https://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/useful-links/security/beware-of-fraud/sim-swap

● https://security-gen.com/SecurityGen-Article-Cloning-SimCard.pdf

● https://www.p1sec.com/blog/understanding-ss7-attacks-vulnerabilities-impacts-and-protection-measures

‍

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

Introduction

In the boundless world of the internet—a digital frontier rife with both the promise of connectivity and the peril of deception—a new spectre stealthily traverses the electronic pathways, casting a shadow of fear and uncertainty. This insidious entity, cloaked in the mantle of supposed authority, preys upon the unsuspecting populace navigating the virtual expanse. And in the heart of India's vibrant tapestry of diverse cultures and ceaseless activity, Mumbai stands out—a sprawling metropolis of dreams and dynamism, yet also the stage for a chilling saga, a cyber charade of foul play and fraud.

The city's relentless buzz and hum were punctuated by a harrowing tale that unwound within the unassuming confines of a Kharghar residence, where a 46-year-old individual's brush with this digital demon would unfold. His typical day veered into the remarkable as his laptop screen lit up with an ominous pop-up, infusing his routine with shock and dread. This deceiving popup, masquerading as an official communication from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), demanded an exorbitant fine of Rs 33,850 for ostensibly browsing adult content—an offence he had not committed.

The Cyber Deception

This tale of deceit and psychological warfare is not unique, nor is it the first of its kind. It finds echoes in the tragic narrative that unfurled in September 2023, far south in the verdant land of Kerala, where a young life was tragically cut short. A 17-year-old boy from Kozhikode, caught in the snare of similar fraudulent claims of NCRB admonishment, was driven to the extreme despair of taking his own life after being coerced to dispense Rs 30,000 for visiting an unauthorised website, as the pop-up falsely alleged.

Sewn with a seam of dread and finesse, the pop-up which appeared in another recent case from Navi Mumbai, highlights the virtual tapestry of psychological manipulation, woven with threatening threads designed to entrap and frighten. In this recent incident a 46-year-old Kharghar resident was left in shock when he got a pop-up on a laptop screen warning him to pay Rs 33,850 fine for surfing a porn website. This message appeared from fake website of NCRB created to dupe people. Pronouncing that the user has engaged in browsing the Internet for some activities, it delivers an ultimatum: Pay the fine within six hours, or face the critical implications of a criminal case. The panacea it offers is simple—settle the demanded amount and the shackles on the browser shall be lifted.

It was amidst this web of lies that the man from Kharghar found himself entangled. The story, as retold by his brother, an IT professional, reveals the close brush with disaster that was narrowly averted. His brother's panicked call, and the rush of relief upon realising the scam, underscores the ruthless efficiency of these cyber predators. They leverage sophisticated deceptive tactics, even specifying convenient online payment methods to ensnare their prey into swift compliance.

A glimmer of reason pierced through the narrative as Maharashtra State cyber cell special inspector general Yashasvi Yadav illuminated the fraudulent nature of such claims. With authoritative clarity, he revealed that no legitimate government agency would solicit fines in such an underhanded fashion. Rather, official procedures involve FIRs or court trials—a structured route distant from the scaremongering of these online hoaxes.

Expert Take

Concurring with this perspective, cyber experts facsimiles. By tapping into primal fears and conjuring up grave consequences, the fraudsters follow a time-worn strategy, cloaking their ill intentions in the guise of governmental or legal authority—a phantasm of legitimacy that prompts hasty financial decisions.

To pierce the veil of this deception, D. Sivanandhan, the former Mumbai police commissioner, categorically denounced the absurdity of the hoax. With a voice tinged by experience and authority, he made it abundantly clear that the NCRB's role did not encompass the imposition of fines without due process of law—a cornerstone of justice grossly misrepresented by the scam's premise.

New Lesson 

This scam, a devilish masquerade given weight by deceit, might surge with the pretence of novelty, but its underpinnings are far from new. The manufactured pop-ups that propagate across corners of the internet issue fabricated pronouncements, feigned lockdowns of browsers, and the spectre of being implicated in taboo behaviours. The elaborate ruse doesn't halt at mere declarations; it painstakingly fabricates a semblance of procedural legitimacy by preemptively setting penalties and detailing methods for immediate financial redress.

Yet another dimension of the scam further bolsters the illusion—the ominous ticking clock set for payment, endowing the fraud with an urgency that can disorient and push victims towards rash action. With a spurious 'Payment Details' section, complete with options to pay through widely accepted credit networks like Visa or MasterCard, the sham dangles the false promise of restored access, should the victim acquiesce to their demands.

Conclusion 

In an era where the demarcation between illusion and reality is nebulous, the impetus for individual vigilance and scepticism is ever-critical. The collective consciousness, the shared responsibility we hold as inhabitants of the digital domain, becomes paramount to withstand the temptation of fear-inducing claims and to dispel the shadows cast by digital deception. It is only through informed caution, critical scrutiny, and a steadfast refusal to capitulate to intimidation that we may successfully unmask these virtual masquerades and safeguard the integrity of our digital existence.

References:

• https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2023/09/29/kozhikode-boy-dies-by-suicide-after-online-fraud-threatens-him-for-visiting-unauthorised-website.html
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/pay-rs-33-8k-fine-for-surfing-porn-warns-fake-ncrb-pop-up-on-screen/articleshow/106610006.cms
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/people-who-watch-porn-receiving-a-warning-pop-up-do-not-pay-it-is-a-scam-1903829-2022-01-24