#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Venezuela Earthquake Footage
Executive Summary
Two powerful earthquakes measuring 7.2 and 7.5 in magnitude struck Venezuela on June 24, 2026, within a span of one minute, causing widespread destruction. Hundreds of buildings were reportedly reduced to rubble. Against this backdrop, a video is being widely shared on social media showing two high-rise buildings colliding with each other before collapsing. Several users have claimed that the footage shows the aftermath of the recent earthquake in Venezuela. CyberPeace Research Wing team conducted a detailed research and found that the viral video is not authentic. The footage was generated using artificial intelligence and is being falsely shared as real visuals from the Venezuela earthquake.
Claim
A Facebook user, “Rana Yashwant,” shared the video on June 26, 2026, with the caption: "Venezuela: The high-rise buildings fell as if they were fast-moving train coaches. How long could they withstand such a powerful earthquake? Both collapsed face-first. What happened to the people? Who knows." https://www.facebook.com/reel/1036186612182534 ,https://perma.cc/98PE-DFKB

Fact Check
We first extracted several keyframes from the viral video and conducted reverse image searches using Google Lens. However, we found no credible news reports or evidence linking the footage to the recent earthquakes in Venezuela. A closer examination of the video revealed several anomalies. Despite the intense shaking and collision of the buildings, the windows and structural features remained unchanged throughout the footage. No visible deformation or damage appeared in the buildings before they collapsed, which is highly unrealistic and raised suspicions that the video had been generated using AI. To verify this, we analyzed the video using the AI detection tool detectvideo.ai. The results indicated a 73 percent probability that the footage was AI-generated.

Similarly, analysis conducted using Sightengine found a 99 percent probability that the video had been created using artificial intelligence.

Conclusion
Our research found the viral claim to be false. The video showing two buildings colliding and collapsing is not related to the recent earthquakes in Venezuela. The footage was generated using artificial intelligence and is being misleadingly shared as real disaster footage.
Related Blogs

On the occasion of 20th edition of Safer Internet Day 2023, CyberPeace in collaboration with UNICEF, DELNET, NCERT, and The National Book Trust (NBT), India, took steps towards safer cyberspace by launching iSafe Multimedia Resources, CyberPeace TV, and CyberPeace Café in an event held today in Delhi.
CyberPeace also showcased its efforts, in partnership with UNICEF, to create a secure and peaceful online world through its Project iSafe, which aims to bridge the knowledge gap between emerging advancements in cybersecurity and first responders. Through Project iSafe, CyberPeace has successfully raised awareness among law enforcement agencies, education departments, and frontline workers across various fields. The event marked a significant milestone in the efforts of the foundation to create a secure and peaceful online environment for everyone.
Launching the Cyberpeace TV, café and isafe material , National Cybersecurity coordinator of Govt of India, Lt Gen Rajesh Pant interacts with the students by introducing them with the theme of this safer internet day. He launched the coword cyber challenge initiative by the countries. Content is most important in cyberspace. He also assured everyone that the government of India is taking a lot of steps at national level to make cyber space safer. He compliments CPF for their initiatives.
Ms. Zafrin Chaudhry, Chief of Communication, UNICEF addresses students with the facts that children make out 1 out of 3 in cyberspace, so they should have a safe cyberspace. They should be informed and equipped with all the information on how to deal with any kind of issues they face in cyberspace. They should share their experience with everyone to make others aware. UNICEF in partnership with CPF is extending help to children to equip them with the help and information.
Major Vineet Kumar, Founder and Global President of CPF welcomed all and introduced us about the launching of iSafe Multimedia Resources, CyberPeace TV, and CyberPeace Café . With this launch he threw some light on upcoming plans like launching a learning module of metaverse with AR and VR. He wants to make cyberspace safe even in tier 3 cities that’s why he established the first cybercafé in Ranchi.
As the internet plays a crucial role in our lives, CyberPeace has taken action to combat potential cyber threats. They introduced CyberPeace TV, the world’s first multilingual TV Channel on Jio TV focusing on Education and Entertainment, a comprehensive online platform that provides the latest in cybersecurity news, expert analysis, and a community for all stakeholders in the field. CyberPeace also launched its first CyberPeace Café for creators and innovators and released the iSafe Multimedia resource containing Flyers, Posters, E hand book and handbook on digital safety for children developed jointly by CyberPeace, UNICEF and NCERT for the public.
O.P. Singh, Former DGP, UP Police & CEO Kailash Satyarthi foundation, , started with the data of internet users in India. The Internet is used in day-to -day activities nowadays and primarily in social media. Students should have a channelized approach to cyberspace like fixed screen time, information to the right content, and usage of the internet. I really appreciate the initiates that CyberPeace is taking in this direction.
The celebration continued by iSafe Panel Discussion on “Creating Safer Cyberspace for Children.” The discussion was moderated by Dr. Sangeeta Kaul, Director of DELNET, and was attended by panellists Mr. Rakesh Maheshwari from MeitY(Ministry of electronics and information Technology, Govt. of India), Dr. Indu Kumar from CIET-NCERT, Ms. Bindu Sharma from ICMEC, and Major Vineet Kumar from CyberPeace.
The event was also graced by professional artists from the National School of Drama, who performed Nukkad Natak and Qawwali based on cyber security themes. Students from SRDAV school also entertained the audience with their performances. The attendees were also given a platform to share their experiences with online security issues, and ICT Awardees, Parents and iSafe Champions shared their insights with the guests. The event also had stalls by CyberPeace Corps, a Global volunteer initiative, and CIET-NCERT for students to explore and join the cause. The event’s highlight was the 360 Selfie Booth, where attendees lined up to have their turn.

Brief Overview of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies. The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.
The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.
In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions
- The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
- Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
- The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.
Application & Timeline of Act
The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:
- August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
- February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
- August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models.
- August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
- August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.
The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).
In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers.
CyberPeace Outlook
The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.
The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount.
At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.
References:
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
- https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
- https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
- https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

Introduction
Recently the attackers employed the CVE-2017-0199 vulnerability in Microsoft Office to deliver a fileless form of the Remcos RAT. The Remcos RAT makes the attacker have full control of the systems that have been infected by this malware. This research will give a detailed technical description of the identified vulnerability, attack vector, and tactics together with the practical steps to counter the identified risks.
The Targeted Malware: Remcos RAT
Remcos RAT (Remote Control & Surveillance) is a commercially available remote access tool designed for legitimate administrative use. However, it has been widely adopted by cybercriminals for its stealth and extensive control capabilities, enabling:
- System control and monitoring
- Keylogging
- Data exfiltration
- Execution of arbitrary commands
The fileless variant utilised in this campaign makes detection even more challenging by running entirely in system memory, leaving minimal forensic traces.
Attack Vector: Phishing with Malicious Excel Attachments
The phishing email will be sent which appears as legitimate business communication, such as a purchase order or invoice. This email contains an Excel attachment that is weaponized to exploit the CVE-2017-0199 vulnerability.
Technical Analysis: CVE-2017-0199 Exploitation
Vulnerability Assessment
- CVE-2017-0199 is a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in Microsoft Office which uses Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) objects.
- Affected Components:some text
- Microsoft Word
- Microsoft Excel
- WordPad
- CVSS Score: 7.8 (High Severity)
Mechanism of Exploitation
The vulnerability enables attackers to craft a malicious document when opened, it fetches and executes an external payload via an HTML Application (HTA) file. The execution process occurs without requiring user interaction beyond opening the document.
Detailed Exploitation Steps
- Phishing Email and Malicious Document some text
- The email contains an Excel file designed to make use of CVE-2017-0199.
- When the email gets opened, the document automatically connects to a remote server (e.g., 192.3.220[.]22) to download an HTA file (cookienetbookinetcache.hta).
- Execution via mshta.exe some text
- The downloaded HTA file is executed using mshta.exe, a legitimate Windows process for running HTML Applications.
- This execution is seamless and does not prompt the user, making the attack stealthy.
- Multi-Layer Obfuscation some text
- The HTA file is wrapped in several layers of scripting, including: some text
- JavaScript
- VBScript
- PowerShell
- This obfuscation helps evade static analysis by traditional antivirus solutions.
- The HTA file is wrapped in several layers of scripting, including: some text
- Fileless Payload Deployment some text
- The downloaded executable leverages process hollowing to inject malicious code into legitimate system processes.
- The Remcos RAT payload is loaded directly into memory, avoiding the creation of files on disk.
Fileless Malware Techniques
1. Process Hollowing
The attack replaces the memory of a legitimate process (e.g., explorer.exe) with the malicious Remcos RAT payload. This allows the malware to:
- Evade detection by blending into normal system activity.
- Run with the privileges of the hijacked process.
2. Anti-Analysis Techniques
- Anti-Debugging: Detects the presence of debugging tools and terminates malicious processes if found.
- Anti-VM and Sandbox Evasion: Ensures execution only on real systems to avoid detection during security analysis.
3. In-Memory Execution
- By running entirely in system memory, the malware avoids leaving artifacts on the disk, making forensic analysis and detection more challenging.
Capabilities of Remcos RAT
Once deployed, Remcos RAT provides attackers with a comprehensive suite of functionalities, including:
- Data Exfiltration: some text
- Stealing system information, files, and credentials.
- Remote Execution: some text
- Running arbitrary commands, scripts, and additional payloads.
- Surveillance: some text
- Enabling the camera and microphone.
- Capturing screen activity and clipboard contents.
- System Manipulation: some text
- Modifying Windows Registry entries.
- Controlling system services and processes.
- Disabling user input devices (keyboard and mouse).
Advanced Phishing Techniques in Parallel Campaigns
1. DocuSign Abuse
Attackers exploit legitimate DocuSign APIs to create authentic-looking phishing invoices. These invoices can trick users into authorising payments or signing malicious documents, bypassing traditional email security systems.
2. ZIP File Concatenation
By appending multiple ZIP archives into a single file, attackers exploit inconsistencies in how different tools handle these files. This allows them to embed malware that evades detection by certain archive managers.
Broader Implications of Fileless Malware
Fileless malware like Remcos RAT poses significant challenges:
- Detection Difficulties: Traditional signature-based antivirus systems struggle to detect fileless malware, as there are no static files to scan.
- Forensic Limitations: The lack of disk artifacts complicates post-incident analysis, making it harder to trace the attack's origin and scope.
- Increased Sophistication: These campaigns demonstrate the growing technical prowess of cybercriminals, leveraging legitimate tools and services for malicious purposes.
Mitigation Strategies
- Patch Management some text
- It is important to regularly update software to address known vulnerabilities like CVE-2017-0199. Microsoft released a patch for this vulnerability in April 2017.
- Advanced Email Security some text
- It is important to implement email filtering solutions that can detect phishing attempts, even those using legitimate services like DocuSign.
- Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)some text
- Always use EDR solutions to monitor for suspicious behavior, such as unauthorized use of mshta.exe or process hollowing.
- User Awareness and Training some text
- Educate users about phishing techniques and the risks of opening unexpected attachments.
- Behavioral Analysis some text
- Deploy security solutions capable of detecting anomalous activity, even if no malicious files are present.
Conclusion
The attack via CVE-2017-0199 further led to the injection of a new fileless variant of Remcos RAT, proving how threats are getting more and more sophisticated. Thanks to the improved obfuscation and the lack of files, the attackers eliminate all traditional antiviral protection and gain full control over the infected computers. It is real and organisations have to make sure that they apply patches on time, that they build better technologies for detection and that the users themselves are more wary of the threats.
References
- Fortinet FortiGuard Labs: Analysis by Xiaopeng Zhang
- Perception Point: Research on ZIP File Concatenation
- Wallarm: DocuSign Phishing Analysis
- Microsoft Security Advisory: CVE-2017-0199