#FactCheck-Viral Video Falsely Claims ‘Civil War-Like Situation’ in Lucknow; Actually Shows Slum Fire

Executive Summary:

CVE 2024-3094 is a backdoor vulnerability recently found in Kali Linux installations that happened between March 26th to 29th. This vulnerability was found in XZ package version 5.6.0 to 5.6.1. It could allow the malicious actor to compromise SSHD authentication, and grant unauthorized access to the entire system remotely. The users who have installed or updated Kali Linux during the said time are advised to update their system to safeguard against this vulnerability. 

The Dangerous Backdoor

The use of the malicious implant found in XZ Utils as a remote code execution tool makes it more dangerous, because of its ability to compromise the affected systems. Initially, researchers believed the vulnerability enabled an authentication bypass for the OpenSSH server (SSHD) process. However, further analysis revealed it is better characterized as a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability.

The backdoor intercepts the RSA_public_decrypt function, verifies the host's signature using a fixed Ed448 key, and if successful, executes malicious code passed by the attacker via the system() function. This leaves no trace in SSHD logs and makes it difficult to detect the vulnerability. 

Impacted Linux Distributions

The compromised versions of XZ Utils have been found in the following Linux distributions released in March 2024:

• Kali Linux (between March 26 and March 29)
• openSUSE Tumbleweed and openSUSE MicroOS (March 7 to March 28)
• Fedora 41, Fedora Rawhide, and Fedora Linux 40 beta
• Debian (testing, unstable, and experimental distributions only)
• Arch Linux container images (February 29 to March 29)
• Meanwhile, distributions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE Leap, and Debian Stable are not believed to be affected.

How Did This Happen?

The malicious code appears to have been inserted by taking advantage of a typical control transfer vulnerability. The original maintainer of the XZ Libs project on GitHub handed over control of the repository to an account that had been contributing to various data compression-related projects for several years. It was at this point that the backdoor was implanted in the project code.

Fortunately, the Potential Disaster Was Averted

As per Igor Kuznetsov, head of Kaspersky's Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT), the vulnerability CVE-2024-3094 is considered as the largest scale attack that has happened in the Linux ecosystem history. Because it targeted the primary remote management tool for Linux servers on the internet which is  SSH servers.  

As this vulnerability was detected in the testing and rolling distributions in the short period of time, where the latest software packages are used. This results to the minimum damage to the linux users and so far no case of CVE-2024-3094 being actively exploited have been detected.

Staying Safe

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) advises that users who installed or updated the affected operating systems in March immediately roll back to XZ Utils 5.4.6 version and be on alert for any malicious activity. It is recommended to change the passwords in the case of a distribution where a weak version of XZ Utils has been installed. 

The Yara rule has been released to detect any infected systems by CVE-2024-3094 Vulnerability. 

Conclusion

The discovery of the XZ Utils backdoor provides a reminder to be vigilant in the open source software environment. This supply chain attack highlights the importance of strong security measures, elaborate code reviews, and regular distribution of security updates to provide shield against such vulnerabilities. Always staying informed and taking the necessary precautions, Linux users can mitigate the potential impact of this vulnerability to keep their systems safe.

References : 

• https://thehackernews.com/2024/03/urgent-secret-backdoor-found-in-xz.html 
• https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2024/03/29/cve-2024-3094-linux-backdoor/ 
• https://www.kali.org/blog/about-the-xz-backdoor/ 
• https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/cve-2024-3094-vulnerability-backdoor/50873/ 
• https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2024/04/01/etr-backdoored-xz-utils-cve-2024-3094/ 

‍

Introduction

In a world where Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already changing the creation and consumption of content at a breathtaking pace, distinguishing between genuine media and false or doctored content is a serious issue of international concern. AI-generated content in the form of deepfakes, synthetic text and photorealistic images is being used to disseminate misinformation, shape public opinion and commit fraud. As a response, governments, tech companies and regulatory bodies are exploring ‘watermarking’ as a key mechanism to promote transparency and accountability in AI-generated media. Watermarking embeds identifiable information into content to indicate its artificial origin. 

Government Strategies Worldwide

Governments worldwide have pursued different strategies to address AI-generated media through watermarking standards. In the US, President Biden's 2023 Executive Order on AI directed the Department of Commerce and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish clear guidelines for digital watermarking of AI-generated content. This action puts a big responsibility on large technology firms to put identifiers in media produced by generative models. These identifiers should help fight misinformation and address digital trust.

The European Union, in its Artificial Intelligence Act of 2024, requires AI-generated content to be labelled. Article 50 of the Act specifically demands that developers indicate whenever users engage with synthetic content. In addition, the EU is a proponent of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), an organisation that produces secure metadata standards to track the origin and changes of digital content.

India is currently in the process of developing policy frameworks to address AI and synthetic content, guided by judicial decisions that are helping shape the approach. In 2024, the Delhi High Court directed the central government to appoint members for a committee responsible for regulating deepfakes. Such moves indicate the government's willingness to regulate AI-generated content. 

China, has already implemented mandatory watermarking on all deep synthesis content. Digital identifiers must be embedded in AI media by service providers, and China is one of the first countries to adopt stern watermarking legislation.

Understanding the Technical Feasibility

Watermarking AI media means inserting recognisable markers into digital material. They can be perceptible, such as logos or overlays or imperceptible, such as cryptographic tags or metadata. Sophisticated methods such as Google's SynthID apply imperceptible pixel-level changes that remain intact against standard image manipulation such as resizing or compression. Likewise, C2PA metadata standards enable the user to track the source and provenance of an item of content.

Nonetheless, watermarking is not an infallible process. Most watermarking methods are susceptible to tampering. Aforementioned adversaries with expertise, for instance, can use cropping editing or AI software to delete visible watermarks or remove metadata. Further, the absence of interoperability between different watermarking systems and platforms hampers their effectiveness. Scalability is also an issue enacting and authenticating watermarks for billions of units of online content necessitates huge computational efforts and routine policy enforcement across platforms. Scientists are currently working on solutions such as blockchain-based content authentication and zero-knowledge watermarking, which maintain authenticity without sacrificing privacy. These new techniques have potential for overcoming technical deficiencies and making watermarking more secure.

Challenges in Enforcement

Though increasing agreement exists for watermarking, implementation of such policies is still a major issue. Jurisdictional constraints prevent enforceability globally. A watermarking policy within one nation might not extend to content created or stored in another, particularly across decentralised or anonymous domains. This creates an exigency for international coordination and the development of worldwide digital trust standards. While it is a welcome step that platforms like Meta, YouTube, and TikTok have begun flagging AI-generated content, there remains a pressing need for a standardised policy that ensures consistency and accountability across all platforms. Voluntary compliance alone is insufficient without clear global mandates.

User literacy is also a significant hurdle. Even when content is properly watermarked, users might not see or comprehend its meaning. This aligns with issues of dealing with misinformation, wherein it's not sufficient just to mark off fake content, users need to be taught how to think critically about the information they're using. Public education campaigns, digital media literacy and embedding watermarking labels within user-friendly UI elements are necessary to ensure this technology is actually effective.

Balancing Privacy and Transparency

While watermarking serves to achieve digital transparency, it also presents privacy issues. In certain instances, watermarking might necessitate the embedding of metadata that will disclose the source or identity of the content producer. This threatens journalists, whistleblowers, activists, and artists utilising AI tools for creative or informative reasons. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that watermarking norms do not violate freedom of expression or facilitate surveillance. The solution is to achieve a balance by employing privacy-protection watermarking strategies that verify the origin of the content without revealing personally identifiable data. "Zero-knowledge proofs" in cryptography may assist in creating watermarking systems that guarantee authentication without undermining user anonymity.

On the transparency side, watermarking can be an effective antidote to misinformation and manipulation. For example, during the COVID-19 crisis, misinformation spread by AI on vaccines, treatments and public health interventions caused widespread impact on public behaviour and policy uptake. Watermarked content would have helped distinguish between authentic sources and manipulated media and protected public health efforts accordingly.

Best Practices and Emerging Solutions

Several programs and frameworks are at the forefront of watermarking norms. Adobe, Microsoft and others' collaborative C2PA framework puts tamper-proof metadata into images and videos, enabling complete traceability of content origin. SynthID from Google is already implemented on its Imagen text-to-image model and secretly watermarks images generated by AI without any susceptibility to tampering. The Partnership on AI (PAI) is also taking a leadership role by building out ethical standards for synthetic content, including standards around provenance and watermarking. These frameworks become guides for governments seeking to introduce equitable, effective policies. In addition, India's new legal mechanisms on misinformation and deepfake regulation present a timely point to integrate watermarking standards consistent with global practices while safeguarding civil liberties.

Conclusion

Watermarking regulations for synthetic media content are an essential step toward creating a safer and more credible digital world. As artificial media becomes increasingly indistinguishable from authentic content, the demand for transparency, origin, and responsibility increases. Governments, platforms, and civil society organisations will have to collaborate to deploy watermarking mechanisms that are technically feasible, compliant and privacy-friendly. India is especially at a turning point, with courts calling for action and regulatory agencies starting to take on the challenge. Empowering themselves with global lessons, applying best-in-class watermarking platforms and promoting public awareness can enable the nation to acquire a level of resilience against digital deception. 

References

1. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
2. https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/delhi-high-court-directs-centre-to-nominate-members-for-deepfake-committee
3.  https://c2pa.org
4. https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/misinformations-impact-on-public-health-policy-decisions
5.  https://deepmind.google/technologies/synthid/
6. https://www.imatag.com/blog/china-regulates-ai-generated-content-towards-a-new-global-standard-for-transparency

‍

Introduction

Most people who lose money to an online scam do the same thing first. They stare at the bank message and try to work out whether it can still be undone. Sometimes it can, but only if the right people move within hours. In Delhi, once the amount crosses ₹50 lakh, those people sit in a unit most residents have never heard of: the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations unit, known as IFSO.

The scale explains why it exists. Delhi residents lost close to ₹1,000 crore to cyber fraud in 2025, after roughly ₹1,100 crore in 2024, and police counted at least 376 cases in 2025 in which a single victim lost more than ₹50 lakh. Investment scams, boss impersonation and "digital arrest" calls, in which fraudsters pose as police, CBI or courier officials and convince a victim that they are under investigation, topped the list.

Where IFSO came from

IFSO's roots go back to February 2019, when the then Union Home Minister inaugurated the National Cyber Forensic Lab alongside a Delhi Police cybercrime unit called CyPAD. CyPAD was later renamed IFSO, and for years it worked inside the Special Cell, the force's counter-terror and organised crime wing. On 3 December 2025, an order approved by the Commissioner of Police made it a standalone unit, with all its personnel reporting directly to a Deputy Commissioner of Police (IFSO). By then the city also had dedicated cyber police stations in all 15 districts, which matters for what follows.

Who takes which case

Delhi Police sorts cyber fraud by the amount lost.

The split came with a change that matters to ordinary victims. From 1 November 2025, anyone who has lost ₹1 lakh or more can have an e-FIR registered at the Integrated Help Desk of any police station in the capital, down from a ₹10 lakh threshold earlier. Smaller losses still go through the 1930 helpline and the national portal. In practice, then, the amount decides who takes the case after you report, not which door you walk through.

What IFSO actually does

It chases the money, fast. Stolen funds rarely stay put. They hop through chains of "mule" accounts within minutes. When a victim reports and supplies transaction details, IFSO starts what police call lien marking, asking banks to put a hold on the money. According to the unit's DCP, Delhi Police managed to hold nearly 20 per cent of defrauded funds in 2025, almost double the share in 2024.

It works across state lines and borders. In October 2026, IFSO was reported to have broken a syndicate with handlers in Cambodia and other Southeast Asian countries, arresting 11 people. In the same operation, working with Andhra Pradesh Police, it helped secure ₹7.25 crore from the ₹10.25 crore taken from a 79-year-old man in Vijayawada, and put a hold on a further ₹1.96 crore. The network was linked to 78 complaints on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, across several states, involving about ₹73 crore.

It tries to intervene before the money is gone. Reports describe a financial monitoring wing that identifies potential victims while a scam is still unfolding. In one round of interventions it reportedly helped prevent about ₹1.53 crore in losses across five states, including an elderly man held in fear by a "digital arrest" for 14 days.

It brings the forensic muscle. Reporting describes IFSO as home to a cybercrime lab whose services are available to police forces in other states, which is part of why complex, multi-state cases land with it.

If it happens to you or someone you know

Time is the one thing you cannot get back, so the order matters.

1. Call the national cyber helpline, 1930, immediately, and tell your bank at the same time.
2. File the complaint on cybercrime.gov.in. In Delhi, if the loss is ₹1 lakh or more, you can also have an e-FIR registered at any police station's help desk.
3. Keep everything: transaction IDs, account numbers, the scammer's phone numbers, screenshots, chats, call logs. Do not delete the app or the conversation.
4. Do not pay anyone who offers to recover your money for a fee. Delhi Police advice is blunt: do not join online investment groups, do not install unknown .apk files, and do not transfer money without verification.

Why the First Hour Counts

Picture the money after a scam. It rarely sits in one place. Within hours it is usually split across several “mule” accounts, then withdrawn or pushed onward, sometimes into crypto. That is the whole reason 1930 exists.

The helpline is run by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre under the Home Ministry, around the clock. When you call, the details go into a system called CFCFRMS, which alerts whichever bank or wallet is holding the money at that moment and asks it to freeze the amount before it moves again. Under a procedure issued on 2 January 2026, the call itself is handled by the police of your own state.

The numbers are large. By 30 June 2026, the Home Ministry told the Lok Sabha, more than ₹11,158 crore had been “saved” across over 32.80 lakh complaints. Read that word carefully, though: “saved” means held by banks, not handed back. Getting it back is a separate step, and a Money Restoration Module, live since April 2026, was built to speed that up.

A change to watch: D4C

On Tuesday, 25 August 2026, the Delhi Government approved a new body, the Delhi Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (D4C), meant to be the nodal agency for cyber fraud under the Commissioner of Police, with a command centre at Police Headquarters on Jai Singh Road working around the clock. Hindi reporting at the time said IFSO would be merged into it. IFSO's investigation wing, the digital investigation lab, the training and awareness centre, the 1930 helpline control room in Haiderpur and a Fraud Mitigation Centre, where bank representatives are to sit alongside police, would all come under D4C, and the 15 district cyber stations would work to its directions. English coverage noted that how the two bodies relate had not been fully explained.

For a victim the advice does not change: report first through 1930 or the portal, and let the system route the case. What may change is the name on the door.

The takeaway

Policing can claw money back only while it is still traceable, and that window is measured in hours. IFSO's record shows what a specialist unit can do inside it. The rest of the work belongs to the rest of us: verify before paying, report early, and never be embarrassed to call 1930.

References

1. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/delhi/delhi-police-lowers-e-fir-threshold-for-cyber-fraud-cases-to-1-lakh/
2. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/delhi/delhiites-lose-rs-1000-crore-to-cyber-frauds-in-2025/amp
3. https://thepatriot.in/crime/over-7000-arrested-in-delhi-polices-biggest-cybercrime-crackdown-86937
4. https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2025/12/04/des90-dl-ifso-separation.html
5. https://www.thestatesman.com/cities/delhi/delhi-police-busts-digital-arrest-syndicate-with-foreign-links-11-arrested-rs-7-25-crore-saved-1503650650.html
6. https://www.newshubonline.com/delhi-police-foil-cyber-fraud-attempts-worth-%E2%82%B91-53-crore-across-five-states-rescue-senior-citizens-from-digital-arrest-scams/
7. https://www.bwpoliceworld.com/article/delhi-police-will-now-host-d4c-instead-of-ifso-to-tackle-cybercrime-621038
8. https://www.saahassamachar.in/big-action-on-cyber-fraud-in-delhi-new-d4c-center-will-work-24-hours
9. https://aninews.in/news/national/general-news/delhi-police-d4c-to-have-dedicated-unit-for-school-bomb-threat-emails-online-crimes-against-women-and-children20260831103631/

‍