#FactCheck -AI-Generated Image Falsely Linked to Kotdwar Shop Controversy

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.

Overview:

After the blackout on July 19, 2024, which affected CrowdStrike’s services worldwide, cybercriminals began to launch many phishing attacks and distribute malware. These activities mainly affect CrowdStrike customers, using the confusion as a way to extort information through fake support sites. The analysis carried out by the Research Wing of CyberPeace and Autobot Infosec has identified several phishing links and malicious campaigns.

The Exploitation:

Cyber adversaries have registered domains that are similar to CrowdStrike’s brand and have opened fake accounts on social media platforms. These are fake platforms that are employed to defraud users into surrendering their personal and sensitive details for use in other fraudulent activities.

Phishing Campaign Links:

• crowdstrike-helpdesk[.]com
• crowdstrikebluescreen[.]com
• crowdstrike-bsod[.]com
• crowdstrikedown[.]site
• crowdstrike0day[.]com
• crowdstrikedoomsday[.]com
• crowdstrikefix[.]com
• crashstrike[.]com
• crowdstriketoken[.]com
• fix-crowdstrike-bsod[.]com
• bsodsm8r[.]xamzgjedu[.]com
• crowdstrikebsodfix[.]blob[.]core[.]windows[.]net
• crowdstrikecommuication[.]app
• fix-crowdstrike-apocalypse[.]com
• supportportal-crowdstrike-com[.]translate[.]goog
• crowdstrike-cloudtrail-storage-bb-126d5e[.]s3[.]us-west-1[.]amazonaws[.]com
• crowdstrikeoutage[.]info
• clownstrike[.]co[.]uk
• crowdstrikebsod[.]com
• whatiscrowdstrike[.]com
• clownstrike[.]co
• microsoftcrowdstrike[.]com
• crowdfalcon-immed-update[.]com
• crowdstuck[.]org
• failstrike[.]com
• winsstrike[.]com
• crowdpass[.]com

In one case, a PDF file is being circulated with CrowdStrike branding, saying ‘Download The Updater,’ which is a link to a ZIP file. The ZIP file is a compressed file that has an executable file with a virus. This is a clear sign that the hackers are out to take advantage of the current situation by releasing the malware as an update.

‍

‍

‍

In another case, there is a malicious Microsoft Word document that is currently being shared, which claims to offer a solution on how to deal with this CrowdStrike BSOD bug. But there is a hidden risk in the document. When users follow the instructions and enable the embedded macro, it triggers the download of an information-stealing malware from a remote host. This is a form of malware that is used to steal information and is not well recognized by most security software. Also it sends the stolen data to the samesame remote host but with different port number, which likey works as the CnC server for the campaign.

• Name New_Recovery_Tool_to_help_with_CrowdStrike_issue_impacting_Windows[.]docm
• MD5 dd2100dfa067caae416b885637adc4ef
• SHA-1 499f8881f4927e7b4a1a0448f62c60741ea6d44b
• SHA-256 803727ccdf441e49096f3fd48107a5fe55c56c080f46773cd649c9e55ec1be61
  
• URLS http://172.104.160[.]126:8099/payload2.txt, http://172.104.160[.]126:5000/Uploadss

‍

Recent Outage Impact:

On July 19, 2024, CrowdStrike faced a global outage that originated from an update of its Falcon Sensor security software. This outage affected many government organizations and companies in different industries, such as finance, media, and telecommunications. The event led to numerous complaints from the users who experienced problems like blue screen of death and system failure. Although, CrowdStrike has admitted to the problem and is in the process of fixing it. 

Preventive Measures:

• Organize regular awareness sessions to educate the employees about the phishing techniques and how they can avoid the phishing scams, emails, links, and websites.
• MFA should be used for login to the sensitive accounts and systems for an improvement on the security levels.
• Make sure all security applications including the antivirus and anti-malware are up to date to help in the detection of phishing scams.
• This includes putting in place of measures such as alert on account activity or login patterns to facilitate early detection of phishing attempts.
• Encourage employees and users to inform the IT department as soon as they have any suspicions regarding phishing attempts.

Conclusion:

The recent CrowdStrike outage is a perfect example of how cybercriminals take advantage of the situation and user’s confusion and anxiety. Thus, people and organizations can keep themselves from these threats and maintain the confidentiality of their information by being cautious and adhering to the proper standards. To get the current information on the BSOD problem and the detailed instructions on its solution, visit CrowdStrike’s support center. Reported problems should be handled with caution and regular backup should be made to minimize the effects.

References:

• https://app.any.run/tasks/2c0ffc87-4059-4d6f-8306-1258cf33aa54/
• https://app.any.run/tasks/48e18e33-2007-49a8-aa60-d04c21e8fa11
• https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/19001dd441e50233d7f0addb4fcd405a70ac3d5e310ff20b331d6f1a29c634f0/relations
• https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/803727ccdf441e49096f3fd48107a5fe55c56c080f46773cd649c9e55ec1be61/detection
• https://www.joesandbox.com/analysis/1478411#iocs

‍

Introduction

Earlier this month, lawmakers in Colorado, a U.S. state, were summoned to a special legislative session to rewrite their newly passed Artificial Intelligence (AI) law before it even takes effect. Although the discussion taking place in Denver may seem distant, evolving regulations like this one directly address issues that India will soon encounter as we forge our own course for AI governance.

The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act

Colorado became the first U.S. state to pass a comprehensive AI accountability law, set to come into force in 2026. It aims to protect people from bias, discrimination, and harm caused by predictive algorithms since AI tools have been known to reproduce societal biases by sidelining women from hiring processes, penalising loan applicants from poor neighbourhoods, or through welfare systems that wrongly deny citizens their benefits. But the law met resistance from tech companies who threatened to pull out form the state, claiming it is too broad in scope in its current form and would stifle innovation. This brings critical questions about AI regulation to the forefront:

• Who should be responsible when AI causes harm? Developers, deployers, or both? 
• How should citizens seek justice? 
• How can tech companies be incentivised to develop safe technologies? 

Colorado’s governor has called a special session to update the law before it kicks in. 

What This Means for India 

India is on its path towards framing a dedicated AI-specific law or directions, and discussions are underway through the IndiaAI Mission, the proposed Digital India Act, committee set by the Delhi High Court on deepfake and other measures. But the dilemmas Colorado is wrestling with are also relevant here.

• AI uptake is growing in public service delivery in India. Facial recognition systems are expanding in policing, despite accuracy and privacy concerns. Fintech apps using AI-driven credit scoring raise questions of fairness and transparency.
• Accountability is unclear. If an Indian AI-powered health app gives faulty advice, who should be liable- the global developer, the Indian startup deploying it, or the regulator who failed to set safeguards?
• India has more than 1,500 AI startups (NASSCOM), which, like Colorado’s firms, fear that onerous compliance could choke growth. But weak guardrails could undermine public trust in AI altogether.

Lessons for India

India’s Ministry of Electronics and IT ( MEITy) favours a light-touch approach to AI regulation, and exploring and advancing ways for a future-proof guideline. Further, lessons from other global frameworks can guide its way. 

• Colorado’s case shows us the necessity of incorporating feedback loops in the policy-making process. India should utilise regulatory sandboxes and open, transparent consultation processes before locking in rigid rules. 
• It will also need to explore proportionate obligations, lighter for low-risk applications and stricter for high-risk use cases such as policing, healthcare, or welfare delivery. 
• Europe’s AI Act is heavy on compliance, the U.S. federal government leans toward deregulation, and Colorado is somewhere in between. India has the chance to create a middle path, grounded in our democratic and developmental context.

‍

Conclusion

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in hiring, banking, education, and welfare, opportunities for ordinary Indians are being redefined. To shape how this pans out, states like Tamil Nadu and Telangana have taken early steps to frame AI policies. Lessons will emerge from their initiative in addressing AI governance. Policy and regulation will always be contested, but contestations are a part of the process. 

The Colorado debate shows us how participative law-making, with room for debate, revision, and iteration, is not a weakness but a necessity. For India’s emerging AI governance landscape, the challenge will be to embrace this process while ensuring that citizen rights and inclusion are balanced well with industry concerns. CyberPeace advocates for responsible AI regulation that balances innovation and accountability.

‍

References 

• https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-lawmakers-look-repeal-replace-controversial-artificial-intelligence-law/
• https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/a-deep-dive-into-colorados-artificial-intelligence-act/
• https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/11/indias-advance-on-ai-regulation?lang=en 
• https://the-captable.com/2024/12/india-ai-regulation-light-touch/ 
• https://indiaai.gov.in/article/tamilnadu-s-ai-policy-six-step-tamdef-guidance-framework-and-deepmax-scorecard 

‍