#FactCheck- Old 2019 Video Falsely Shared as Iran Seizing US Ship in Hormuz

Executive Summary

A video of an Indian Army officer leaving a meeting alongside a police official is being widely circulated on social media. Some users are sharing the clip with the claim that the officer walked out of a meeting after the government refused to provide funding for security preparations related to Pakistan and China. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video is not related to any dispute over defence funding. It actually shows a press conference held in Patiala in March 2025 regarding an attack on an Indian Army Colonel. During the press conference, the Army officer demanded a transparent, time-bound, fair and impartial research, while the police official provided details about the action taken in the case.

‍

Claim

‍

Facebook user ‘Salman Pathan’ shared the video on July 15, 2026, with the claim: “After the government refused funding for security arrangements/preparations related to Pakistan and China, an Indian Army officer left the meeting.” The post further questioned the government over alleged priorities in spending public money.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/3995874277215044 

https://perma.cc/JL7A-2A6B?type=standard

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found that the same video was uploaded on March 25, 2025, by X user ‘Man Aman Singh Chhina’. The post stated:

“Chief of Staff of Western Command Lieutenant General Mohit Wadhwa left along with senior officers after reading a statement on the Patiala Colonel case without answering any questions. The DGP also read his statement and left, but at least he answered media questions.”

https://x.com/manaman_chhina/status/1904492655720988850?s=20

‍

‍

Further research revealed that the Government of Punjab’s official YouTube channel had uploaded the video of the same press conference on March 25, 2025. At the end of the press conference, when the Army and police officials leave the venue, the same question from journalists that appears in the viral clip can be heard.

https://www.youtube.com/live/7i3Nxc6vTpU

‍

According to a report published by Amar Ujala on July 16, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dissatisfied with the research conducted by the Chandigarh Police SIT, transferred the case to the Central Bureau of research (CBI).

https://www.amarujala.com/punjab/chandigarh-punjab/colonel-bath-assault-case-high-court-handed-over-research-to-cbi-2025-07-16

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that an old and unrelated video from March 2025 is being falsely circulated with the claim that an Army officer left a meeting after the government refused funding for security preparations related to Pakistan and China. The viral video actually relates to a press conference regarding the attack on Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath in Patiala and has no connection with any defence funding issue. The viral claim is therefore false and misleading.

‍

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍

Introduction

This tale, the Toothbrush Hack, straddles the ordinary and the sophisticated; an unassuming household item became the tool for committing cyber crime. Herein lies the account of how three million electronic toothbrushes turned into the unwitting infantry in a cyber skirmish—a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) assault that flirted with the thin line that bridges the real and the outlandish.

In January, within the  Swiss borders, a story began circulating—first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. A legion of cybercriminals, with honed digital acumen, had planted malware on some three million electric toothbrushes. These devices, mere slivers of plastic and circuitry, became agents of chaos, converging their electronic requests upon the servers of an undisclosed Swiss firm, hurling that digital domain into digital blackout for several hours and wreaking an economic turmoil calculated in seven-figure sums.

The entire Incident

It was claimed that three million electric toothbrushes were allegedly used for a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. The article claimed that cybercriminals installed malware on the toothbrushes and used them to access a Swiss company's website, causing the site to go offline and causing significant financial loss. However, cybersecurity experts have questioned the veracity of the story, with some describing it as "total bollocks" and others pointing out that smart electric toothbrushes are connected to smartphones and tablets via Bluetooth, making it impossible for them to launch DDoS attacks over the web. Fortinet clarified that the topic of toothbrushes being used for DDoS attacks was presented as an illustration of a given type of attack and that no IoT botnets have been observed targeting toothbrushes or similar embedded devices.

The Tech Dilemma - IOT Hack

Imagine the juxtaposition of this narrative against our common expectations of technology: 'This example, which could have been from a cyber thriller, did indeed occur,' asserted the narratives that wafted through the press and social media. The story radiated outward with urgency, painting the image of IoT devices turned to evil tools of digital unrest. It was disseminated with such velocity that face value became an accepted currency amid news cycles. And yet, skepticism took root in the fertile minds of those who dwell in the domains of cyber guardianship.

Several cyber security and IOT experts, postulated that the information from Fortinet had been contorted by the wrench of misinterpretation. They and their ilk highlighted a critical flaw: smart electric toothbrushes are bound to their smartphone or tablet counterparts by the tethers of Bluetooth, not the internet, stripping them of any innate ability to conduct DDoS or any other type of cyber attack directly.

With this unraveling of an incident fit for our cyber age, we are presented with a sobering reminder of the threat spectrum that burgeons as the tendrils of the Internet of Things (IoT) insinuate themselves into our everyday fabrics. Innocuous devices, previously deemed immune to the internet's shadow, now stand revealed as potential conduits for cyber evil. The layers of impact are profound, touching the private spheres of individuals, the underpinning frameworks of national security, and the sinews that clutch at our economic realities. The viral incident was a misinformation. 

IOT Weakness

IoT devices bear inherent weaknesses for twin reasons: the oft-overlooked element of security and the stark absence of a means to enact those security measures. Ponder this problem Is there a pathway to traverse the security settings of an electric toothbrush? Or to install antivirus measures within the cooling confines of a refrigerator? The answers point to an unsettling simplicity—you cannot.

How to Protect 

Vigilance - What then might be the protocol to safeguard our increasingly digital space? It begins with vigilance, the cornerstone of digital self-defense. Ensure the automatic updating of all IoT devices when they beckon with the promise of a new security patch. 

Self Awareness - Avoid the temptation of public USB charging stations, which, while offering electronic succor to your devices, could also stand as the Trojan horses for digital pathogens. Be attuned to signs of unusual power depletion in your gadgets, for it may well serve as the harbinger of clandestine malware. Navigate the currents of public Wi-Fi with utmost care, as they are as fertile for data interception as they are convenient for your connectivity needs.

Use of Firewall - A firewall can prove stalwart against the predators of the internet interlopers. Your smart appliances, from the banality of a kitchen toaster to the novelty of an internet-enabled toilet, if shielded by this barrier, remain untouched, and by extension, uncompromised. And let us not dismiss this notion with frivolity, for the prospect of a malware-compromised toilet or any such smart device leaves a most distasteful specter.

Limit the use of IOT -  Additionally, and this is conveyed with the gravity warranted by our current digital era, resist the seduction of IoT devices whose utility does not outweigh their inherent risks. A smart television may indeed be vital for the streaming aficionado amongst us, yet can we genuinely assert the need for a connected laundry machine, an iron, or indeed, a toothbrush? Here, prudence is a virtue; exercise it with judicious restraint.

Conclusion 

As we step forward into an era where connectivity has shifted from a mere luxury to an omnipresent standard, we must adopt vigilance and digital hygiene practices with the same fervour as those for our corporal well-being. Let the toothbrush hack not simply be a tale of caution, consigned to the annals of internet folklore, but a fable that imbues us with the recognition of our role in maintaining discipline in a realm where even the most benign objects might be mustered into service by a cyberspace adversary.

References 

• https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/no-3-million-electric-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack/ 
• https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-home/3-million-smart-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack-but-they-could-have-been/
• https://www.securityweek.com/3-million-toothbrushes-abused-for-ddos-attacks-real-or-not/

https://www.cxodigitalpulse.com/hackers-use-electric-toothbrushes-in-massive-cyber-attack-results-in-huge-financial-loss/