Protect Your Accounts: Infostealer Malware Highlights the Need for 2FA Activation

Introduction

Since the inception of the Internet and social media platforms like Facebook, X (Twitter), Instagram, etc., the government and various other stakeholders in both foreign jurisdictions and India have looked towards the intermediaries to assume responsibility for the content floated on these platforms, and various legal provisions showcase that responsibility. For the first time in many years, these intermediaries come together to moderate the content by setting a standard for the creators and propagators of this content. The influencer marketing industry in India is at a crucial juncture, with its market value projected to exceed Rs. 3,375 crore by 2026. But every industry is coupled with its complications; like in this scenario, there is a section of content creators who fail to maintain the standard of integrity and propagate content that raises concerns of authenticity and transparency, often violating intellectual property rights (IPR) and privacy. 

As influencer marketing continues to shape digital consumption, the need for ethical and transparent content grows stronger. To address this, the India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC) has released its Code of Standards, aiming to bring accountability and structure to the fast-evolving online space.

Bringing Accountability to the Digital Fame Game

The India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC), established on 15th February, 2025, is founded with the objective to empower creators, advocate for fair policies, and promote responsible content creation. The IIGC releases the Code of Standard, not a moment too soon; it arrives just in time, a necessary safeguard before social media devolves into a chaotic marketplace where anything and everything is up for grabs. Without effective regulation, digital platforms become the marketplace for misinformation and exploitation. 

The IIGC leads the movement with clarity, stating that the Code is a significant piece that spans across 20 crucial sections governing key areas such as paid partnership disclosures, AI-generated personas, content safety, and financial compliance. 

Highlights from the Code of Standard

• The Code exhibits a technical understanding of the industry of content creation and influencer marketing. The preliminary sections advocate for accuracy, transparency, and maintaining credibility with the audience that engages with the content. Secondly, the most fundamental development is with regard to the “Paid Partnership Disclosure” included in Section 2 of the Code that mandates disclosure of any material connection, such as financial agreements or collaboration with the brand.
• Another development, which potently comes at a befitting hour, is the disclosure of “AI Influencers”, which establishes that the nature of the influencer has to be disclosed, and such influencers, whether fully virtual or partially AI-enhanced, must maintain the same standards as any human influencer. 
• The code ranges across various other aspects of influencer marketing, such as expressing unpaid “Admiration” for the brand and public criticism of the brand, being free from personal bias, honouring financial agreements, non-discrimination, and various other standards that set the stage for a safe and fair digital sphere. 
• The Code also necessitates that the platform users and the influencers handle sexual and sensitive content with sincere deliberation, and usage of such content shall be for educational and health-related contexts and must not be used against community standards. The Code includes various other standards that work towards making digital platforms safer for younger generations and impressionable minds. 

A Code Without Claws? Challenges in Enforcement 

The biggest obstacle to the effective implementation of the code is distinguishing between an honest promotion and a paid brand collaboration without any explicit mention of such an agreement. This makes influencer marketing susceptible to manipulation, and the manipulation cannot be tackled with a straitjacket formula, as it might be found in the form of exaggerated claims or omission of critical information.  

Another hurdle is the voluntary compliance of the influencers with the advertising standards. Influencer marketing is an exercise in a borderless digital cyberspace, where the influencers often disregard the dignified standards to maximise their earnings and commercial motives. 

The debate between self-regulation and government oversight is constantly churning, where experience tells us that overreliance on self-regulation has proven to be inadequate, and succinct regulatory oversight is imperative in light of social media platforms operating as a transnational commercial marketplace. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Introduction of a licensing framework for influencers that fall into the “highly followed” category with high engagement, who are more likely to shape the audience’s views. 
• Usage of technology to align ethical standards with influencer marketing practices, ensuring that misleading advertisements do not find a platform to deceive innocent individuals.
• Educating the audience or consumers on the internet about the ramifications of negligence and their rights in the digital marketplace. Ensuring a well-established grievance redressal mechanism via digital regulatory bodies. 
• Continuous and consistent collaboration and cooperation between influencers, brands, regulators, and consumers to establish an understanding and foster transparency and a unified objective to curb deceptive advertising practices. 

References

• https://iigc.org/code-of-standards/influencers/code-of-standards-v1-april.pdf
• https://legalonus.com/the-impact-of-influencer-marketing-on-consumer-rights-and-false-advertising/
• https://exhibit.social/news/india-influencer-governing-council-iigc-launched-to-shape-the-future-of-influencer-marketing/

‍

Introduction

Significantly, in March 2023, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002's regulations placed Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers functioning located under the purview of the Anti Money Laundering/Counter Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT) scheme. An important step toward controlling VDA SP operations and guaranteeing adherence to Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT) regulations.

The significance of AML-CFT procedures

The AML-CFT framework's incorporation of Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs) is essential for protecting the banking industry from illegal activities including the laundering of funds and counter-financing of terrorist attacks. These regulations become more crucial as the market for digital assets develops and becomes more well-known.

The practice of money laundering is hiding the source of the sum received illegally, thus it's critical to have strict policies in place to track down and stop these kinds of operations. Furthermore, funding for terrorism is a serious danger to international safety, hence stopping the flow of money to terrorist companies is a top concern for global officials.

The goal of policymakers' move to include VDA SPs in the AML-CFT architecture is to set up control and surveillance procedures that will guarantee these organisations' open and honest operations. This involves tracking transactions, flagging questionable activity, and conducting extensive customer investigations. Incorporating such procedures not only reduces the potential for financial crimes but also builds confidence and trust in the electronic asset market.

It is important to see the significance of AML-CFT procedures and the changes in the legal framework to reflect the evolving characteristics of digital currencies. These procedures are essential to preserving the reliability and safety of the wider banking system.

Notifications of Compliance Show Cause

Under Section 13 of the PMLA Act 2002, FIU IND sent adherence Show Cause Notices to nine offshore Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs) as part of its dedication to upholding compliance with regulations. This affirmative step requires organisations to be scrutinised and attempted to bring them under inspection.

Governmental Response

The Director of FIU IND has addressed the Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to take further measures due to the disregard of offshore firms. According to the notification, URLs connected to these organisations that operate in India in violation of the PML Act's requirements must be blocked. 

Mandatory Registration for VDA SPs

Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (both onshore and offshore) who perform a range of operations, including the trading of digital goods for monetary currencies, the distribution of digital currency, and the management or preservation of electronic assets, are now obliged to register with FIU.

Range of Statutory Responsibilities

In accordance with the PML Act, VDA SPs are subject to several requirements, including documentation, disclosure, and other duties. One of their responsibilities is to register with the FIU IND. The primary focus is on guaranteeing that VDA SPs comply with AML-CFT protocols, hence enhancing the general reliability of the banking industry.

Difficulties with Offshore Compliance

There are many obstacles in guaranteeing that offshore organisations comply with Anti Money Laundering/Counter Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT), chief amongst them being their unwillingness to undergo registration. Some overseas Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs) have been reluctant to comply with the existing rules and regulations, even though they cater to a significant number of Indian users. There are several reasons for this hesitation, such as worries about heightened monitoring, the expense of compliance, and the apparent complexity of governmental processes. Regulatory organisations have taken steps to close the discrepancy between offshore businesses' real activities and the regulations they must follow. In addition to maintaining the trustworthiness of the economic system, resolving the issues with offshore adherence is essential for promoting confidence and openness in the market for electronic assets.

Conclusion

FIU IND has demonstrated its dedication to creating an effective regulatory framework for Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers through its recent measures. India hopes to fortify its countermeasures against money laundering and safeguard the financial well-being of its users by expanding the AML-CFT legislation to offshore firms. The continuous efforts to restrict the URLs of non-compliant companies show a proactive approach to stopping illicit activity and fostering a safe and law-abiding virtual asset ecosystem. The safety and soundness of the banking sector will be crucially maintained by laws and regulations as the digital world develops.

References

• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1991372
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/books/reviews/business-economy/fiu-ind-issues-compliance-showcause-notices-to-nine-offshore-vda-sps/article67684613.ece
• https://business.outlookindia.com/news/fiu-issues-notice-to-9-offshore-crypto-platforms-writes-to-meity-for-blocking-of-urls

Overview:

The rapid digitization of educational institutions in India has created both opportunities and challenges. While technology has improved access to education and administrative efficiency, it has also exposed institutions to significant cyber threats. This report, published by CyberPeace, examines the types, causes, impacts, and preventive measures related to cyber risks in Indian educational institutions. It highlights global best practices, national strategies, and actionable recommendations to mitigate these threats.

‍

‍

‍

Significance of the Study:

The pandemic-induced shift to online learning, combined with limited cybersecurity budgets, has made educational institutions prime targets for cyberattacks. These threats compromise sensitive student, faculty, and institutional data, leading to operational disruptions, financial losses, and reputational damage. Globally, educational institutions face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for universal and localized responses.

Threat Faced by Education Institutions:

‍

Based on the insights from the CyberPeace’s report titled 'Exploring Cyber Threats and Digital Risks in Indian Educational Institutions', this concise blog provides a comprehensive overview of cybersecurity threats and risks faced by educational institutions, along with essential details to address these challenges.

🎣 Phishing: Phishing is a social engineering tactic where cyber criminals impersonate trusted sources to steal sensitive information, such as login credentials and financial details. It often involves deceptive emails or messages that lead to counterfeit websites, pressuring victims to provide information quickly. Variants include spear phishing, smishing, and vishing.

💰 Ransomware: Ransomware is malware that locks users out of their systems or data until a ransom is paid. It spreads through phishing emails, malvertising, and exploiting vulnerabilities, causing downtime, data leaks, and theft. Ransom demands can range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

🌐 Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS): DDoS attacks overwhelm servers, denying users access to websites and disrupting daily operations, which can hinder students and teachers from accessing learning resources or submitting assignments. These attacks are relatively easy to execute, especially against poorly protected networks, and can be carried out by amateur cybercriminals, including students or staff, seeking to cause disruptions for various reasons

🕵️ Cyber Espionage: Higher education institutions, particularly research-focused universities, are vulnerable to spyware, insider threats, and cyber espionage. Spyware is unauthorized software that collects sensitive information or damages devices. Insider threats arise from negligent or malicious individuals, such as staff or vendors, who misuse their access to steal intellectual property or cause data leaks..

🔒 Data Theft: Data theft is a major threat to educational institutions, which store valuable personal and research information. Cybercriminals may sell this data or use it for extortion, while stealing university research can provide unfair competitive advantages. These attacks can go undetected for long periods, as seen in the University of California, Berkeley breach, where hackers allegedly stole 160,000 medical records over several months.

🛠️ SQL Injection: SQL injection (SQLI) is an attack that uses malicious code to manipulate backend databases, granting unauthorized access to sensitive information like customer details. Successful SQLI attacks can result in data deletion, unauthorized viewing of user lists, or administrative access to the database.

🔍Eavesdropping attack: An eavesdropping breach, or sniffing, is a network attack where cybercriminals steal information from unsecured transmissions between devices. These attacks are hard to detect since they don't cause abnormal data activity. Attackers often use network monitors, like sniffers, to intercept data during transmission.

🤖 AI-Powered Attacks: AI enhances cyber attacks like identity theft, password cracking, and denial-of-service attacks, making them more powerful, efficient, and automated. It can be used to inflict harm, steal information, cause emotional distress, disrupt organizations, and even threaten national security by shutting down services or cutting power to entire regions

Insights from Project eKawach

‍

The CyberPeace Research Wing, in collaboration with SAKEC CyberPeace Center of Excellence (CCoE) and Autobot Infosec Private Limited, conducted a study simulating educational institutions' networks to gather intelligence on cyber threats. As part of the e-Kawach project, a nationwide initiative to strengthen cybersecurity, threat intelligence sensors were deployed to monitor internet traffic and analyze real-time cyber attacks from July 2023 to April 2024, revealing critical insights into the evolving cyber threat landscape.

Cyber Attack  Trends

‍

Between July 2023 and April 2024, the e-Kawach network recorded 217,886 cyberattacks from IP addresses worldwide, with a significant portion originating from countries including the United States, China, Germany, South Korea, Brazil, Netherlands, Russia, France, Vietnam, India, Singapore, and Hong Kong. However, attributing these attacks to specific nations or actors is complex, as threat actors often use techniques like exploiting resources from other countries, or employing VPNs and proxies to obscure their true locations, making it difficult to pinpoint the real origin of the attacks.

Brute Force Attack:

‍

The analysis uncovered an extensive use of automated tools in brute force attacks, with 8,337 unique usernames and 54,784 unique passwords identified. Among these, the most frequently targeted username was “root,” which accounted for over 200,000 attempts. Other commonly targeted usernames included: "admin", "test", "user", "oracle", "ubuntu", "guest", "ftpuser", "pi", "support"

Similarly, the study identified several weak passwords commonly targeted by attackers. “123456” was attempted over 3,500 times, followed by “password” with over 2,500 attempts. Other frequently targeted passwords included: "1234", "12345", "12345678", "admin", "123", "root", "test", "raspberry", "admin123", "123456789"

Insights from Threat Landscape Analysis

‍

Research done by the USI - CyberPeace Centre of Excellence (CCoE) and Resecurity has uncovered several breached databases belonging to public, private, and government universities in India, highlighting significant cybersecurity threats in the education sector. The research aims to identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks without harming individuals or assigning blame, based on data available at the time, which may evolve with new information. Institutions were assigned risk ratings that descend from A to F, with most falling under a D rating, indicating numerous security vulnerabilities. Institutions rated D or F are 5.4 times more likely to experience data breaches compared to those rated A or B. Immediate action is recommended to address the identified risks.

‍

Risk Findings :

‍

The risk findings for the institutions are summarized through a pie chart, highlighting factors such as data breaches, dark web activity, botnet activity, and phishing/domain squatting. Data breaches and botnet activity are significantly higher compared to dark web leakages and phishing/domain squatting. The findings show 393,518 instances of data breaches, 339,442 instances of botnet activity, 7,926 instances related to the dark web and phishing & domain activity - 6711.

‍

Key Indicators:  Multiple instances of data breaches containing credentials (email/passwords) in plain text.

• Botnet activity indicating network hosts compromised by malware.

• Credentials from third-party government and non-governmental websites linked to official institutional emails

• Details of software applications, drivers installed on compromised hosts.

‍

• Sensitive cookie data exfiltrated from various browsers.

‍

• IP addresses of compromised systems.
• Login credentials for different Android applications.

Below is the sample detail of one of the top educational institutions that provides the insights about the higher rate of data breaches, botnet activity, dark web activities and phishing & domain squatting. 

Risk Detection: 

It indicates the number of data breaches, network hygiene, dark web activities, botnet activities, cloud security, phishing & domain squatting, media monitoring and miscellaneous risks. In the below example, we are able to see the highest number of data breaches and botnet activities in the sample particular domain.

Risk Changes:

Risk by Categories:

Risk is categorized with factors such as high, medium and low, the risk is at high level for data breaches and botnet activities.

Challenges Faced by Educational Institutions

‍

Educational institutions face cyberattack risks, the challenges leading to cyberattack incidents in educational institutions are as follows:

🔒 Lack of a Security Framework: A key challenge in cybersecurity for educational institutions is the lack of a dedicated framework for higher education. Existing frameworks like ISO 27001, NIST, COBIT, and ITIL are designed for commercial organizations and are often difficult and costly to implement. Consequently, many educational institutions in India do not have a clearly defined cybersecurity framework.

🔑 Diverse User Accounts: Educational institutions manage numerous accounts for staff, students, alumni, and third-party contractors, with high user turnover. The continuous influx of new users makes maintaining account security a challenge, requiring effective systems and comprehensive security training for all users.

📚 Limited Awareness: Cybersecurity awareness among students, parents, teachers, and staff in educational institutions is limited due to the recent and rapid integration of technology. The surge in tech use, accelerated by the pandemic, has outpaced stakeholders' ability to address cybersecurity issues, leaving them unprepared to manage or train others on these challenges.

📱 Increased Use of Personal/Shared Devices: The growing reliance on unvetted personal/Shared devices for academic and administrative activities amplifies security risks.

💬 Lack of Incident Reporting: Educational institutions often neglect reporting cyber incidents, increasing vulnerability to future attacks. It is essential to report all cases, from minor to severe, to strengthen cybersecurity and institutional resilience.

Impact of Cybersecurity Attacks on Educational Institutions

‍

Cybersecurity attacks on educational institutions lead to learning disruptions, financial losses, and data breaches. They also harm the institution's reputation and pose security risks to students. The following are the impacts of cybersecurity attacks on educational institutions:

📚Impact on the Learning Process: A report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that cyberattacks on school districts resulted in learning losses ranging from three days to three weeks, with recovery times taking between two to nine months.

💸Financial Loss: US schools reported financial losses ranging from $50,000 to $1 million due to expenses like hardware replacement and cybersecurity upgrades, with recovery taking an average of 2 to 9 months.

🔒Data Security Breaches: Cyberattacks exposed sensitive data, including grades, social security numbers, and bullying reports. Accidental breaches were often caused by staff, accounting for 21 out of 25 cases, while intentional breaches by students, comprising 27 out of 52 cases, frequently involved tampering with grades.

⚠️Data Security Breach: Cyberattacks on schools result in breaches of personal information, including grades and social security numbers, causing emotional, physical, and financial harm. These breaches can be intentional or accidental, with a US study showing staff responsible for most accidental breaches (21 out of 25) and students primarily behind intentional breaches (27 out of 52) to change grades.

🏫Impact on Institutional Reputation: Cyberattacks damaged the reputation of educational institutions, eroding trust among students, staff, and families. Negative media coverage and scrutiny impacted staff retention, student admissions, and overall credibility.

🛡️ Impact on Student Safety: ‍‍Cyberattacks compromised student safety and privacy. For example, breaches like live-streaming school CCTV footage caused severe distress, negatively impacting students' sense of security and mental well-being.

CyberPeace Advisory:

‍

CyberPeace emphasizes the importance of vigilance and proactive measures to address cybersecurity risks:

1. Develop effective incident response plans: Establish a clear and structured plan to quickly identify, respond to, and recover from cyber threats. Ensure that staff are well-trained and know their roles during an attack to minimize disruption and prevent further damage.
   
   
2. Implement access controls with role-based permissions: Restrict access to sensitive information based on individual roles within the institution. This ensures that only authorized personnel can access certain data, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or data breaches.
   
   
3. Regularly update software and conduct cybersecurity training: Keep all software and systems up-to-date with the latest security patches to close vulnerabilities. Provide ongoing cybersecurity awareness training for students and staff to equip them with the knowledge to prevent attacks, such as phishing.
   
   
4. Ensure regular and secure backups of critical data: Perform regular backups of essential data and store them securely in case of cyber incidents like ransomware. This ensures that, if data is compromised, it can be restored quickly, minimizing downtime.
   
   
5. Adopt multi-factor authentication (MFA): Enforce Multi-Factor Authentication(MFA) for accessing sensitive systems or information to strengthen security. MFA adds an extra layer of protection by requiring users to verify their identity through more than one method, such as a password and a one-time code.
   
   
6. Deploy anti-malware tools: Use advanced anti-malware software to detect, block, and remove malicious programs. This helps protect institutional systems from viruses, ransomware, and other forms of malware that can compromise data security.
   
   
7. Monitor networks using intrusion detection systems (IDS): Implement IDS to monitor network traffic and detect suspicious activity. By identifying threats in real time, institutions can respond quickly to prevent breaches and minimize potential damage.
   
   
8. Conduct penetration testing: Regularly conduct penetration testing to simulate cyberattacks and assess the security of institutional networks. This proactive approach helps identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by actual attackers.
   
   
9. Collaborate with cybersecurity firms: Partner with cybersecurity experts to benefit from specialized knowledge and advanced security solutions. Collaboration provides access to the latest technologies, threat intelligence, and best practices to enhance the institution's overall cybersecurity posture.
   
   
10. Share best practices across institutions: Create forums for collaboration among educational institutions to exchange knowledge and strategies for cybersecurity. Sharing successful practices helps build a collective defense against common threats and improves security across the education sector.

‍

‍

Conclusion: 

‍

The increasing cyber threats to Indian educational institutions demand immediate attention and action. With vulnerabilities like data breaches, botnet activities, and outdated infrastructure, institutions must prioritize effective cybersecurity measures. By adopting proactive strategies such as regular software updates, multi-factor authentication, and incident response plans, educational institutions can mitigate risks and safeguard sensitive data. Collaborative efforts, awareness, and investment in cybersecurity will be essential to creating a secure digital environment for academia.

‍