#FactCheck -Old Image from Iraq Falsely Linked to Alleged Attack on Iran’s Water Treatment Plant

Introduction

The land of the dragon has been significantly advanced in terms of innovation and creating self-sustaining technologies of civic and military importance. Leading nations of the West still need to understand the advancements the dragon land has made in technologies and what potential threats it poses on an international level.

Int on Dragon Land

According to a leaked US intelligence study, China is developing powerful cyber weapons to “seize control” of adversary satellites and render them worthless for data communications or surveillance during combat.

According to the US, China’s effort to build up the capacity to “deny, exploit, or hijack” hostile satellites is critical to controlling information, which Beijing views as a crucial “war-fighting domain.”^[1]

The CIA-marked document, one of hundreds purportedly given by a 21-year-old US Air Guardsman in the most influential American intelligence leaks in over a decade, was released this year and has yet to be disclosed before.

This kind of cyber capabilities would be significantly superior to what Russia has used in Ukraine, where electronic warfare troops have used a brute-force strategy to little avail.

How were the capabilities discovered?

According to a top-secret US dossier, China could use its cyber capabilities to “take control of a satellite, making it inoperable for support of communications, weapons, or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.” The US has never acknowledged having a comparable or superior capability.

By broadcasting related frequencies from truck-mounted jamming systems like the Tirada-2, these attacks were first developed in the 1980s to block communications between low-orbit SpaceX satellites and their on-ground terminals. China’s more ambitious cyberattacks are designed to imitate the signals that adversary satellites’ operators send out, tricking them into malfunctioning or being entirely taken over at critical points in a battle.

Implications of such military capabilities

The south Chinese island nation of Taiwan is attempting to develop a communications infrastructure that can withstand an attack from China after observing how crucial satellite communications have been to the Ukrainian military.

According to a January 2023 article in the Financial Times, it is seeking investors to launch its own satellite provider while testing with 700 non-geostationary satellite receivers around Taiwan to ensure bandwidth in the case of conflict or natural calamities. Similarly, a Russian cyber strike rendered thousands of Ukrainian military routers from US-based Viasat inoperable in the hours before it launched its invasion last year, demonstrating how important satellite communications have become in contemporary wartime. This attack was deemed to be catastrophic by the Ukraine officials as it broke down the communication between the Ukraine army and the govt.

Additionally, several hundred wind turbines in Germany, Poland, and Italy were impacted, which cut off service to thousands of Viasat users in those countries. Even though it was complex, the Viasat hack required accessing the business’ computer systems and then sending commands to the modems that made them break.

How significant is the threat?

According to the leaked assessment, China’s objectives are much more sophisticated and focused towards the future. According to analysts, they would aim to disable satellites’ ability to interact with one another, relay signals and orders to weapons systems, or give back visual and intercepted electronic data. Satellites often work in interconnected clusters and remain unmanned, thus preventing the scope of proper surveillance. Officials from the US military have warned that China has made substantial advancements in creating military space technologies, particularly satellite communications. Beijing is vigorously pursuing counter-space capabilities in an effort to realise its “space dream” of being the dominant force outside of the Earth’s atmosphere by 2045.

Threat to India?

As China aggressively invests in technology meant to disrupt, degrade, and destroy our space capabilities, a potential threat remains on the Indian satellites and spaceships. The complexity of the communication network and extended distance from the Earth can point towards a high number of vulnerabilities for the Indian Space program. Still, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has been working tirelessly, and as of 1st January 2022, India has 21 operational satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and 28 operational satellites in Geostationary Orbit. In 2021, ISRO launched one PSLV-DL variant (PSLV-C51) mission and one GSLV-MkII variant (GSLV-F10) mission. GSLV-F10 could not accomplish the mission successfully. In 2021, India placed five satellites and 1 PSLV rocket body (PS4 stage) in Low Earth Orbits. India placed 65 rocket bodies in orbit from the first launch, of which 42 are still in orbit around the Earth, and 23 have re-entered and burnt up in the Earth’s atmosphere. The break-up event of the 4th stage of PSLV-C3 in 2001 generated 386 debris, of which 76 are still in orbit.

Conclusion

The space race is the new cold war, all nations are working towards securing their space assets while exploring new elements in outer space. It is pertinent that the national interest in space is protected, and a long awaiting space treaty for the modern age needs to be ratified by all nations with a presence in space. The future of space exploration is bright for most nations, but the threats should be eradicated, and an all-inclusive space should be promoted to maintain harmony in space.

^[1] https://www.ft.com/content/fc72d277-7fa8-4b29-9231-4feb34f43b0c

Introduction 

Netflix is no stranger to its subscribers being targeted by SMS and email-led phishing campaigns. But the most recent campaign has been deployed at a global scale, affecting paid users in as many as 23 countries according to cybersecurity firm Bitdefender. In this particular campaign, attackers are using the carrot-and-stick tactic of either creating a false sense of urgency or promising rewards to steal financial information and Netflix credentials. For example, users may be contacted via SMS and told that their account is being suspended due to payment failures. A fake website may be shared through a link, encouraging the individual to share sensitive information to restore their account. Once this information has been input, it is now accessible to the attackers. This can create significant stress and even financial loss for its users. Thus, they are encouraged to develop the necessary skills to recognize and respond to these threats effectively.

How The Netflix Scam Works 

Users are typically contacted through SMS. Bitdefender reports that these messages may look something like this:

"NETFLIX: There was an issue processing your payment. To keep your services active, please sign in and confirm your details at: https://account-details[.]com"

On clicking the link, the victim is directed to a website designed to mimic an authentic user experience interface, containing Netflix’s logo, color scheme, and grammatically-correct text. The website uses this interface to encourage the victim to divulge sensitive personal information, such as account credentials and payment details. Since this is a phishing website, the user’s personal information becomes accessible to the attacker as soon as it is entered. This information is then sold individually or in bundles on the dark web.

Practical Steps to Stay Safe 

1. Know Netflix’s Customer Interface: According to Netflix, it will never ask users to share personal information including credit or debit card numbers, bank account details, and Netflix passwords. It will also never ask for payment through a third-party vendor or website.
2. Verify Authenticity: Do not open links from unknown sources sent by email or sms. If unsure, access Netflix directly by typing the URL into the browser instead of clicking on links in emails or texts. If the link has been opened, do not enter any information.
3. Use Netflix’s Official Support Channels: Confirm any suspicious communication through Netflix’s verified help page or app. Write to phishing@netflix.com with any complaints about such an issue.
4. Contact Your Financial Institution: If you have entered your personal information into a phishing website, you should immediately reach out to your bank to block your card and change your Netflix password. Contact the authorities via www.cybercrime.gov.in or by calling the helpline at 1930 in case of loss of funds.
5. Use Strong Passwords and Enable MFA/2FA: Users are advised to use a unique, strong password with multiple characters. Enable Multi-Factor Authentication or  Two Factor Authentication to your accounts, if available, to add an extra level of security.

Conclusion

Phishing campaigns which are designed to gather customer data through fraudulent means often involve sending links to as many users as possible, with the aim of monetizing stolen information. Attackers exploit user trust in online platforms to steal sensitive personal information, making such campaigns more sophisticated as highlighted above. This underscores the need for users of online platforms to practice good cyber hygiene by verifying information, learning to detect suspicious information and ignoring it, and staying aware of the types of online fraud they may be exposed to. 

Sources 

• https://www.bitdefender.com/en-gb/blog/hotforsecurity/netflix-scam-stay-safe
• https://help.netflix.com/en/node/65674
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/netflix-users-beware-this-netflix-subscription-scam-is-active-in-23-countries-how-to-spot-one-and-stay-safe/articleshow/115820070.cms

Introduction

Artificial intelligence is often hailed as a democratiser of knowledge, opportunity and skill. It is set to improve diagnostics, personalised learning, and productivity to boost the economy, which can assist millions of people to leave poverty. However, this may be an incomplete picture. A report of the United Nations Development Programme in 2025 tells a more complex tale. The Next Great Divergence: Why AI May Widen Inequality Between Countries cautions that, unless acts are taken to intervene, AI will not alleviate inequality between countries but will instead concentrate benefits in already advantaged economies and increase risks in more vulnerable ones.

Two Gaps, One Crisis

AI is not going to create a level playing field: it has been injected into a world where there is unprecedented inequality. The report outlines two structural asymmetries that will influence the ways in which its effects manifest: a capability gap and a vulnerability gap. 

Those countries that have high connectivity, skills, compute and regulation will be in a position to reap a greater portion of the AI dividend. Others will be exposed to greater risks of job losses, information exclusion, misinformation, and the indirect consequences of increased energy and water demands. 

The centre of this transition is the Asia-Pacific region, that harbors a population of more than 55 per cent of the world. More than half of the global AI users are now located in the region, but the initial positions are quite different. Nations such as Singapore and South Korea are already spending a lot of money on AI infrastructure, with others still striving to offer basic broadband services. Two out of three individuals already use AI tools in certain high-income economies. In most countries with low incomes, the utilisation is lower. Such figures are important as they depict not only a gap in technology but also a structural difference in terms of who controls AI and who is controlled by the latter.

When Inequality Becomes a Trust Problem

Any trusted technological system is based on three tenets: transparency, fairness and accountability. AI inequality negatively impacts all three.

If governments implement imported AI systems in areas with limited technical capability, with limited transparency on their operation, their construction, and their biases. Citizens do not really trust when decision-making systems are black boxes and domestic institutions lack the know-how to question them.

Data exclusion also interferes with fairness. The AI systems trained with the datasets not sufficiently representative of the rural population, linguistic minorities, and women will generate poorer results in those groups systematically. Since South Asian women are much less likely to own a smartphone,  this impacts their representation in digital data, and consequently in any AI system trained on such data. 

Safety Risks Are Not Evenly Distributed

The lack of trust has a direct safety aspect. For example, those countries that have less robust information ecosystems have a greater exposure to AI-generated misinformation that can bias the discourse of the populace, alter elections, and cause violence. They also have the weakest capability of screening, tagging, or combating such content.

The same can be said about labour markets. The very same technologies that can speed up marginalisation and destabilise governance increase human insecurity, especially among employees in the informal economy with weak social security. The UNDP report points out that the exposure of female employment to disruption by AI is disproportionate to that of male employment, which further presents a gendered dimension in an already unequal situation.

Risks of infrastructure are skewed as well. Large AI systems may create disproportionately high energy and water demands on countries that host the data infrastructure without there being an equivalent economic payback. The environmental cost is local while profits are outsourced. Dangers of AI spread downwards, and the advantages go upwards.

The Governance Gap and Regulatory Arbitrage

Governance is perhaps the most important aspect. There are only a few states that presently have extensive AI regulation systems. This gives rise to a patchy landscape, in which safety standards differ dramatically and where companies have an incentive to install systems in jurisdictions that have weaker regulation.

The main reason is the lack of capability, as expressed by Philip Schellekens, chief economist of the UNDP in Asia and the Pacific, who says that those countries that invest in skills, computing power and well-run governance structures will gain. The rest will be left far behind. 

This departure has its ramifications outside the nations. When users in other areas are subjected to widely different rates of safety and equity by the same international platforms, the concept of uniform digital norms would no longer be sustainable. Confidence in AI systems is lost not only locally but also on a global scale.

Way Forward

The UNDP report makes it clear that there is no inevitability of divergence. To avert it, however, it is necessary to consider AI governance as a development, rather than a technology problem.

The capacity to govern should be constructed and not presumed. This implies assisting countries in establishing regulatory systems, institutional capacity, and facilitating cross-border collaboration on standards. It can also imply considering some AI features as a public good, with common models and open standards that do not allow a few firms or states to become too powerful.

The UNDP articulates the problem in a simple manner: in the end, the world's people and not machines must decide on what technologies should be given priority and how to utilise them optimally.

Conclusion

AI inequality is often framed as an economic divergence story. But its implications run deeper. It reshapes who is protected, who is visible in data, and who has the power to challenge harmful outcomes. The risk is not just that some countries fall behind economically. It is that the global digital ecosystem fragments into zones of high trust and low trust, high protection and low protection. The choices made now will determine which path prevails. AI can reinforce existing divides or help bridge them. 

But that outcome will not be decided by the technology itself. It will be decided by how societies choose to distribute access, power, and responsibility in the systems they build.

References

1. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-12/undp-rbap-the-next-great-divergence_1.pdf
2. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/press-releases/ai-risks-sparking-new-era-divergence-development-gaps-between-countries-widen-undp-report-finds
3. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/blog/next-great-divergence-how-ai-could-split-world-again-if-we-dont-intervene
4. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/2/ai-threatens-to-widen-inequality-among-states-un
5. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/next-great-divergence
6. https://www.eco-business.com/press-releases/ai-risks-spark-new-era-of-divergence-as-development-gaps-widen-undp-report/

‍