From Rush to Rupture: The Global Impact of Unverified Information

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

India's National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is set to approach the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to recommend mandating a KYC-based system for verifying children's age under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. The decision to approach or send recommendations to MeitY was taken by NCPCR in a closed-door meeting held on August 13 with social media entities. In the meeting, NCPCR emphasised proposing a KYC-based age verification mechanism. In this background, Section 9 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 defines a child as someone below the age of 18, and Section 9 mandates that such children have to be verified and parental consent will be required before processing their personal data.

Requirement of Verifiable Consent Under Section 9 of DPDP Act

Regarding the processing of children's personal data, Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023, provides that for children below 18 years of age, consent from parents/legal guardians is required. The Data Fiduciary shall, before processing any personal data of a child or a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, obtain verifiable consent from the parent or lawful guardian. Additionally, behavioural monitoring or targeted advertising directed at children is prohibited. 

Ongoing debate on Method to obtain Verifiable Consent

Section 9 of the DPDP Act gives parents or lawful guardians more control over their children's data and privacy, and it empowers them to make decisions about how to manage their children's online activities/permissions. However, obtaining such verifiable consent from the parent or legal guardian presents a quandary. It was expected that the upcoming 'DPDP rules,' which have yet to be notified by the Central Government, would shed light on the procedure of obtaining such verifiable consent from a parent or lawful guardian.

However, In the meeting held on 18th July 2024, between MeitY and social media companies to discuss the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (DPDP Rules), MeitY stated that it may not intend to prescribe a ‘specific mechanism’ for Data Fiduciaries to verify parental consent for minors using digital services. MeitY instead emphasised obligations put forth on the data fiduciary under section 8(4) of the DPDP Act to implement “appropriate technical and organisational measures” to ensure effective observance of the provisions contained under this act. 

In a recent update, MeitY held a review meeting on DPDP rules, where they focused on a method for determining children's ages. It was reported that the ministry is making a few more revisions before releasing the guidelines for public input.

CyberPeace Policy Outlook

CyberPeace in its policy recommendations paper published last month, (available here) also advised obtaining verifiable parental consent through methods such as Government Issued ID, integration of parental consent at ‘entry points’ like app stores,  obtaining consent through consent forms, or drawing attention from foreign laws such as California Privacy Law, COPPA, and developing child-friendly SIMs for enhanced child privacy.

CyberPeace in its policy paper also emphasised that when deciding the method to obtain verifiable consent, the respective platforms need to be aligned with the fact that verifiable age verification must be done without compromising user privacy. Balancing user privacy is a question of both technological capabilities and ethical considerations. 

DPDP Act is a brand new framework for protecting digital personal data and also puts forth certain obligations on Data Fiduciaries and provides certain rights to Data Principal. With upcoming ‘DPDP Rules’ which are expected to be notified soon, will define the detailed procedure for the implementation of the provisions of the Act. MeitY is refining the DPDP rules before they come out for public consultation. The approach of NCPCR is aimed at ensuring child safety in this digital era. We hope that MeitY comes up with a sound mechanism for obtaining verifiable consent from parents/lawful guardians after taking due consideration to recommendations put forth by various stakeholders, expert organisations and concerned authorities such as NCPCR. 

References

1. https://www.moneycontrol.com/technology/dpdp-rules-ncpcr-to-recommend-meity-to-bring-in-kyc-based-age-verification-for-children-article-12801563.html
2. https://pune.news/government/ncpcr-pushes-for-kyc-based-age-verification-in-digital-data-protection-a-new-era-for-child-safety-215989/#:~:text=During%20this%20meeting%2C%20NCPCR%20issued,consent%20before%20processing%20their%20data
3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncpcr-likely-to-seek-clause-for-parents-consent-under-data-protection-rules-101724180521788.html
4. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/dpdp-act-2023-and-the-isssue-of-parental-consent

‍

Executive Summary:

A picture about the April 8 solar eclipse, which was authored by AI and was not a real picture of the astronomical event, has been spreading on social media.  Despite all the claims of the authenticity of the image, the CyberPeace’s analysis showed that the image was made using Artificial Intelligence image-creation algorithms. The total solar eclipse on April 8 was observable only in those places on the North American continent that were located in the path of totality, whereas a partial visibility in other places was possible. NASA made the eclipse live broadcast for people who were out of the totality path. The spread of false information about rare celestial occurrences, among others, necessitates relying on trustworthy sources like NASA for correct information.

Claims:

An image making the rounds through social networks, looks like the eclipse of the sun of the 8th of April, which makes it look like a real photograph.

‍

Fact Check:

After receiving the news, the first thing we did was to try with Keyword Search to find if NASA had posted any lookalike image related to the viral photo or any celestial events that might have caused this photo to be taken, on their official social media accounts or website. The total eclipse on April 8 was experienced by certain parts of North America that were located in the eclipse pathway. A part of the sky above Mazatlan, Mexico, was the first to witness it. Partial eclipse was also visible for those who were not in the path of totality. 

Next, we ran the image through the AI Image detection tool by Hive moderation, which found it to be 99.2% AI-generated.

‍

Following that, we applied another AI Image detection tool called Isitai, and it found the image to be 96.16% AI-generated.

‍

With the help of AI detection tools, we came to the conclusion that the claims made by different social media users are fake and misleading. The viral image is AI-generated and not a real photograph.

Conclusion:

Hence, it is a generated image by AI that has been circulated on the internet as a real eclipse photo on April 8. In spite of some debatable claims to the contrary, the study showed that the photo was created using an artificial intelligence algorithm. The total eclipse was not visible everywhere in North America, but rather only in a certain part along the eclipse path, with partial visibility elsewhere. Through AI detection tools, we were able to establish a definite fact that the image is fake. It is very important, when you are talking about rare celestial phenomena, to use the information that is provided by the trusted sources like NASA for the accurate reason.

• Claim:  A viral image of a solar eclipse claiming to be a real photograph of the celestial event on April 08
• Claimed on: X, Facebook, Instagram, website
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍