#FactCheck - Video falsely links a man slapping a cleric to Iran protests
Amid reports that the death toll in Iran’s ongoing protests has risen to 2,571, a video has been widely circulated on social media showing a man slapping a person dressed in clerical attire after an argument. Users sharing the clip claim that public anger in Iran has escalated to the point where people are now physically attacking religious clerics. However, research by the Cyber Peace Foundation has found this claim to be misleading. The research established that the video is not recent and has no connection to the current protests in Iran. In fact, the clip dates back to 2021 and was entirely scripted.
Claim
On January 14, 2026, users on X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video with captions suggesting that Iranian citizens are openly assaulting clerics amid the ongoing unrest. One such post stated that the situation in Iran had deteriorated so badly that people were now beating religious leaders.
The link, archived version, and screenshot of the post are available below:
Factcheck:
To verify the authenticity of the claim, the Cyber Peace Foundation extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a Google reverse image search. This led investigators to a report published on April 19, 2021, on the Persian-language website of Deutsche Welle (DW). The visuals matched the viral clip exactly, confirming that the footage is nearly five years old, not recent. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot:
Further examination of reports by Fars News Agency revealed that Tehran police had conducted a detailed probe into the video at the time and declared it fake and pre-scripted. According to Tehran Police Chief Hossein Rahimi, the individual seen wearing religious attire was not a cleric. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot: He was actually employed at a carpet cleaning shop in Tehran, while the man seen slapping him was his own son.
Police stated that the video was deliberately staged and circulated to provoke public sentiment and create unrest by falsely linking it to religious tensions. Both the father and son were arrested, and images of them in police custody were published in contemporaneous reports. Additional confirmation was found on the Independent Persian website, which had also reported on the incident on April 19, 2021, reiterating that the video was fabricated and unrelated to any protest movement. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot:
Conclusion
The claim that the viral video shows an Iranian protester slapping a cleric during the current wave of protests is false. The video is from 2021, was scripted, and has no link to the ongoing demonstrations in Iran. It is being reshared with a misleading narrative to spread disinformation and inflame public sentiment.c
Related Blogs
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
There has been a struggle to create legal frameworks that can define where free speech ends and harmful misinformation begins, specifically in democratic societies where the right to free expression is a fundamental value. Platforms like YouTube, Wikipedia, and Facebook have gained a huge consumer base by focusing on hosting user-generated content. This content includes anything a visitor puts on a website or social media pages.
The legal and ethical landscape surrounding misinformation is dependent on creating a fine balance between freedom of speech and expression while protecting public interests, such as truthfulness and social stability. This blog is focused on examining the legal risks of misinformation, specifically user-generated content, and the accountability of platforms in moderating and addressing it.
The Rise of Misinformation and Platform Dynamics
Misinformation content is amplified by using algorithmic recommendations and social sharing mechanisms. The intent of spreading false information is closely interwoven with the assessment of user data to identify target groups necessary to place targeted political advertising. The disseminators of fake news have benefited from social networks to reach more people, and from the technology that enables faster distribution and can make it more difficult to distinguish fake from hard news.
Multiple challenges emerge that are unique to social media platforms regulating misinformation while balancing freedom of speech and expression and user engagement. The scale at which content is created and published, the different regulatory standards, and moderating misinformation without infringing on freedom of expression complicate moderation policies and practices.
The impacts of misinformation on social, political, and economic consequences, influencing public opinion, electoral outcomes, and market behaviours underscore the urgent need for effective regulation, as the consequences of inaction can be profound and far-reaching.
Legal Frameworks and Evolving Accountability Standards
Safe harbour principles allow for the functioning of a free, open and borderless internet. This principle is embodied under the US Communications Decency Act and the Information Technology Act in Sections 230 and 79 respectively. They play a pivotal role in facilitating the growth and development of the Internet. The legal framework governing misinformation around the world is still in nascent stages. Section 230 of the CDA protects platforms from legal liability relating to harmful content posted on their sites by third parties. It further allows platforms to police their sites for harmful content and protects them from liability if they choose not to.
By granting exemptions to intermediaries, these safe harbour provisions help nurture an online environment that fosters free speech and enables users to freely express themselves without arbitrary intrusions.
A shift in regulations has been observed in recent times. An example is the enactment of the Digital Services Act of 2022 in the European Union. The Act requires companies having at least 45 million monthly users to create systems to control the spread of misinformation, hate speech and terrorist propaganda, among other things. If not followed through, they risk penalties of up to 6% of the global annual revenue or even a ban in EU countries.
Challenges and Risks for Platforms
There are multiple challenges and risks faced by platforms that surround user-generated misinformation.
- Moderating user-generated misinformation is a big challenge, primarily because of the quantity of data in question and the speed at which it is generated. It further leads to legal liabilities, operational costs and reputational risks.
- Platforms can face potential backlash, both in instances of over-moderation or under-moderation. It can be considered as censorship, often overburdening. It can also be considered as insufficient governance in cases where the level of moderation is not protecting the privacy rights of users.
- Another challenge is more in the technical realm, including the limitations of AI and algorithmic moderation in detecting nuanced misinformation. It holds out to the need for human oversight to sift through the misinformation that is created by AI-generated content.
Policy Approaches: Tackling Misinformation through Accountability and Future Outlook
Regulatory approaches to misinformation each present distinct strengths and weaknesses. Government-led regulation establishes clear standards but may risk censorship, while self-regulation offers flexibility yet often lacks accountability. The Indian framework, including the IT Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, aims to enhance data-sharing oversight and strengthen accountability. Establishing clear definitions of misinformation and fostering collaborative oversight involving government and independent bodies can balance platform autonomy with transparency. Additionally, promoting international collaborations and innovative AI moderation solutions is essential for effectively addressing misinformation, especially given its cross-border nature and the evolving expectations of users in today’s digital landscape.
Conclusion
A balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding public interest is needed to navigate the legal risks of user-generated misinformation poses. As digital platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia continue to host vast amounts of user content, accountability measures are essential to mitigate the harms of misinformation. Establishing clear definitions and collaborative oversight can enhance transparency and build public trust. Furthermore, embracing innovative moderation technologies and fostering international partnerships will be vital in addressing this cross-border challenge. As we advance, the commitment to creating a responsible digital environment must remain a priority to ensure the integrity of information in our increasingly interconnected world.
References
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece
- https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230
- https://www.cnbctv18.com/information-technology/deepfakes-digital-india-act-safe-harbour-protection-information-technology-act-sajan-poovayya-19255261.htm
Executive Summary
Claims are circulating that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a major attack allegedly carried out by Israel and the United States. Amid these claims, a video is being widely shared on social media in which Khamenei can be heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” Research conducted by CyberPeace has found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video being shared is old and that Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence to support a misleading narrative.
Claim
On March 1, 2026, an Instagram user shared the viral video in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” The link to the post and its archived version are provided above along with a screenshot.
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found the same video on the YouTube channel of Sky News Australia, published on June 19, 2025. In the approximately 43-minute-long video, the portion used in the viral clip appears around the 10-minute mark.
According to Sky News Australia’s report, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had rejected US President Donald Trump’s demand for unconditional surrender. The Ayatollah regime also warned that any American military intervention would be accompanied by “irreparable damage.” Upon closely listening to the viral clip, we noticed that Khamenei’s voice sounded robotic, raising suspicion that it may have been AI-generated. We then analyzed the video using the AI detection tool AURGIN AI. The results indicated that the viral clip had been generated using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
Our research establishes that the viral video is old and has been digitally manipulated. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence and the clip is being shared with a misleading claim.
