#FactCheck-RBI's Alleged Guidelines on Ink Colour for Cheque Writing

Executive Summary

‍

A video clip of Indian Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi is being widely shared across social media platforms with the claim that he criticised the Indian government's policy towards Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. In the viral clip, the Army Chief is allegedly heard saying that India is doing nothing except sending money to the Taliban government due to the Centre’s failed policies.

However, CyberPeace Research Wing research  found the claim to be false. The viral video is a deepfake. In the original footage, General Upendra Dwivedi was speaking about Operation Sindoor and the preparedness of the Indian Armed Forces for a possible “Operation Sindoor 2.0.” He made no remarks regarding the Taliban or the government’s Afghanistan policy.

‍

Claim

‍

An X user named “XaQil” shared the viral video on May 31, 2026, with the caption:“Due to failed policies of the Central Government, India is doing nothing except sending Money to Taliban government. How can money alone do everything?” — Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi.

• https://x.com/in9Zero/status/2060937823516246187 
• https://perma.cc/PT39-N7FR 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

In the viral video, General Dwivedi is purportedly heard making remarks about India’s Afghanistan policy, the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran, and India’s diplomatic position. To verify the claim, we searched for the original source of the video. A reverse image search of key frames led us to the authentic footage posted by news agency ANI on its official X account on May 30, 2026.

• https://x.com/ANI/status/2060571216159899988?s=20

‍

‍

In the original video, General Dwivedi was responding to a question about Operation Sindoor. He stated that the operation was still ongoing, hostilities had only paused temporarily, and that the Indian Armed Forces were fully prepared if “Operation Sindoor 2.0” became necessary. 

He also spoke about enhancing coordination among the three services and maintaining operational readiness.”

No part of his statement mentioned the Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or criticism of the Central Government. 

Further corroboration came from media reports covering the same event. According to a report published by Navbharat Times on May 30, 2026, General Dwivedi made the remarks during the passing-out parade of the 150th course of the National Defence Academy (NDA), where he attended as the chief guest. He reiterated that the armed forces were fully prepared for “Operation Sindoor 2.0” if required.

• https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/state/maharashtra/pune/army-chief-general-upendra-dwivedi-says-armed-forces-are-ready-for-operation-sindoor-2-0-if-needed/articleshow/131407992.cms

‍

‍

Since the content of the viral clip did not match the original statement, we examined it using InVID’s MeVer Deepfake Detector. The tool flagged signs of AI manipulation and indicated that the video had likely been altered. 

‍

Conclusion

‍

Cyber Peace Foundation found that the viral video purportedly showing Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi criticising the Indian government’s policy towards the Taliban is a deepfake.  The Army Chief made no such remarks. The original video was recorded during an NDA event, where he spoke about Operation Sindoor and the preparedness of the Indian Armed Forces for a possible future operation. The viral clip has been manipulated using AI to spread a false narrative.

‍

Introduction

Military equipment used by elite special forces is supposed to be the most tightly secured hardware a country owns, the last place anyone would expect a hidden flaw in its parts supply chain to slip through undetected. Yet that is precisely where one surfaced this August, when The Telegraph, revealed that cameras fitted to the Royal Navy's K3 Scout surveillance drones, equipment used by Britain's Royal Marines and closely associated with the Special Boat Service, the United Kingdom's elite maritime special forces unit, had been secretly transmitting signals to an internet address inside China. The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence stripped the affected cameras of all internet connectivity the moment the transmissions were discovered, and has spent the days since insisting no sensitive data actually left the country. That distinction, between what was taken and what was exposed, is where this incident becomes genuinely worth examining.

What was actually found, and what was not

The K3 Scout is an 8.4 metre uncrewed surface vessel built by Kraken Technology Group, a British defence manufacturer based in Fareham, Hampshire, capable of reaching 55 knots and remaining at sea for up to 30 days. The Royal Navy purchased roughly 20 of these vessels under Project Beehive, a £12 million programme designed to fold autonomous systems into frontline maritime operations quickly, and the Royal Marines' Coastal Forces Squadron and 47 Commando have operated the fleet since March 2026.

A routine cyber vulnerability assessment, not an external tip off or an adversarial intrusion, is what caught the problem. Investigators found the electro-optical and infrared cameras mounted on the vessels sending what the industry calls heartbeat communications, routine signals a connected device sends simply to confirm it is powered on and functioning, to an IP address located in China. Kraken did not manufacture the cameras in house; the company sourced them from a third party supplier that had reportedly given assurances about their security, assurances the heartbeat traffic now calls directly into question.

Every source, including the UK Ministry of Defence itself, confirms the cameras were sending signals to an IP address in China. What remains unconfirmed is which company actually manufactured the compromised camera components. Neither The Telegraph nor the Ministry of Defence has publicly named the specific camera manufacturer, and an unverified social media claim allegedly identifying a Canadian supplier has since been disputed by that company, with no confirmation from official sources tying it to the incident as of now.

Crucially, the UK Ministry of Defence has been consistent on one point across every statement it has issued: its investigation found no evidence that classified information, government systems, or mission critical data were accessed, compromised, or transmitted outside the country. That is a meaningful distinction, and one worth taking at face value rather than dismissing as reflexive reassurance, since heartbeat signals by design carry connectivity status rather than payload content. But security researchers who reviewed the case have been equally consistent in noting that even metadata this thin has value to a watching adversary. Knowing when and where a piece of specialised military hardware is powered on and actively connected can itself function as a targeting signal, revealing patterns of deployment, operational tempo, and geographic presence without a single classified file ever leaving the device.

Why this particular fleet matters

The timing sharpens the concern considerably. A defence source cited in reporting on the story indicated the K3 Scout fleet was being considered as part of a future British contribution to securing freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, where the United Kingdom has already deployed a warship amid discussions of a multinational security mission. Equipment destined for a contested, strategically sensitive waterway having any unexplained data path back to a systemic rival's territory is not a detail that stays confined to a procurement footnote. The vessels were also tested during a NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea in 2025, meaning any compromised telemetry pattern could theoretically have been observed by the very alliance partners Britain was demonstrating the technology to.

The deeper issue is structural rather than incidental. Modern military hardware, however elite the unit operating it, is rarely built end to end by a single trusted manufacturer. Cameras, sensors, chipsets, and firmware routinely pass through several tiers of suppliers before reaching a finished platform, and each tier is a potential point where the chain of custody and verification can quietly break down. Kraken's own assurances about its camera supplier illustrate exactly how that failure propagates: a manufacturer can act in good faith, rely on a vendor's word, and still end up fielding compromised hardware, because the vulnerability was never introduced at the assembly stage but several layers upstream, in components whose ultimate origin was never fully audited.

CyberPeace View | A wider principle worth naming

There is a broader ethical and legal frame worth applying here, one that extends beyond ordinary cybersecurity practice into the territory international humanitarian law occupies. The core distinction that law draws, between combatants and protected persons, between military objectives and civilian life, depends fundamentally on operators having accurate, uncompromised situational awareness. A surveillance platform is not merely a piece of hardware; it is the sensory apparatus through which decisions with real consequences for human life get made in contested environments. If the integrity of that apparatus cannot be guaranteed, the reliability of everything built on top of it, target verification, proportionality assessments, distinction between combatant and civilian, is quietly weakened at its foundation. This is not a claim that the K3 Scout breach itself caused harm; the Ministry of Defence's own findings suggest it did not. It is a reminder that supply chain integrity in military sensing equipment is not simply a procurement or cybersecurity concern sitting apart from the laws of armed conflict. It sits underneath them, because a compromised sensor is, in a very real sense, a compromised judgment further down the chain.

Where India fits into this story

India has been grappling with functionally the same problem for years, and its response offers a useful point of comparison. Reporting dating back to 2023 revealed that Indian defence officials had quietly barred domestic drone manufacturers from using components sourced from countries sharing a land border with India, an unmistakable, if unstated, reference to China, citing exactly the kind of vulnerability now playing out in Britain's fleet, compromised communication functions, cameras, and operating software capable of leaking intelligence. That policy has hardened considerably since. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence in New Delhi finalised a stringent framework requiring that drones procured from domestic manufacturers contain no Chinese origin components or electronics at all, and at least one major drone order was placed on hold after allegations surfaced that the supplier had used Chinese parts despite those restrictions.

The commercial consequence of that caution has been real and acknowledged openly by industry figures; sourcing components outside China raises costs, given that up to 70 percent of the global drone supply chain has historically run through Chinese manufacturing. But India appears to have concluded, well ahead of this particular British incident becoming public, that the cost of auditing and diversifying a supply chain is lower than the cost of fielding compromised sensing equipment inside sensitive military operations. Indian firms have responded by building propulsion, avionics, and camera systems in house specifically to close this gap, treating component provenance as a first order design question rather than an afterthought bolted on after a breach forces the issue. Seen from that vantage point, the K3 Scout episode reads less like a uniquely British failure and more like a case study in a risk India's own defence establishment had already priced in.

Lessons from the breach

A few conclusions follow fairly directly from how this incident unfolded. First, routine cyber vulnerability assessments work, and this case is arguably an argument for doing more of them, more often, rather than a sign that current practice failed; the breach was caught internally, before any confirmed operational harm occurred. Second, a manufacturer's own assurances about a component supplier are not a substitute for independent verification, since Kraken's good faith reliance on its camera vendor's word is precisely where this vulnerability slipped through. Third, and most durably, defence procurement increasingly needs to treat component provenance as inseparable from operational security, not as a compliance checkbox to be satisfied once at contract signing. India's multi-year pivot toward auditing and localising sensitive component supply chains, imperfect and costly as it has been, points toward the direction other defence establishments will likely be pushed in as more incidents like this one surface. The K3 Scout breach did not, on the evidence available, compromise a single mission. What it compromised was the assumption that hardware assurances alone are sufficient, and that assumption was never going to survive close scrutiny forever.

References

1. LBC, "Spy cameras on Navy drones used by UK's elite special forces sending signals to China as security fears grow." https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/royal-navy-spy-drones-sending-signals-to-china-5Hjdfpm_2/
2. Defence Blog, "Royal Navy naval drone cameras secretly sent data to China." https://defence-blog.com/royal-navy-naval-drone-cameras-secretly-sent-data-to-china/
3. The National Interest, "The Royal Navy's Spy Drones May Have Been Spying for China, Too." https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/royal-navys-spy-drones-may-have-been-spying-for-china-too-sa-081026
4. Kyiv Post, "UK Navy Drone Camera Components Were Secretly Communicating With China." https://www.kyivpost.com/post/82061
5. The Defense News, "UK's Royal Navy K3 Scout Drone Cameras Found Sending Data to an IP Address in China." https://www.thedefensenews.com/UKs-Royal-Navy-K3-Scout-Drone-Cameras-Found-Sending-Data-to-an-IP-Address-in-China/
6. The Jerusalem Post, "UK drones sent data to China, raising US, European fears on Chinese components." https://www.jpost.com/international/article-905191
7. Firstpost, "UK military drones fitted with Chinese cameras found sending data to Beijing: Report." https://www.firstpost.com/world/uk-military-drones-fitted-with-chinese-cameras-found-sending-data-to-beijing-report-14037075.html
8. Firstpost, "UK deploys warship to West Asia amid plans for multinational Hormuz security mission." https://www.firstpost.com/world/uk-deploys-warship-to-west-asia-amid-plans-for-multinational-hormuz-security-mission-ws-e-14009471.html
9. Reuters via Inquirer.net, "India bars makers of military drones from using Chinese parts." https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1813810/india-bars-makers-of-military-drones-from-using-chinese-parts
10. The Print, "Amid concerns about use of Chinese parts in drones, Army general urges industry to be transparent." https://theprint.in/defence/amid-concerns-about-use-of-chinese-parts-in-drones-army-general-urges-industry-to-be-transparent/2305866/
11. idrw.org, "India Unveils Drone Security Framework to Eliminate Chinese Components and Strengthen UAV Cyber Defences." https://idrw.org/india-unveils-drone-security-framework-to-eliminate-chinese-components-and-strengthen-uav-cyber-defences/
12. The Week, "The hidden weakness in India's military drones: Zen Technologies says it has fixed the Chinese problem." https://www.theweek.in/news/defence/2026/07/09/the-hidden-weakness-in-indias-military-drones-zen-technologies-says-it-has-fixed-the-chinese-problem.html

‍

Introduction:

Cybercriminals can hack your phone using or exploiting some public charging stations such as at airports, Malls, hotel rooms, etc. When you plug in your phone or laptop devices into a power charger using USB, you may be plugging into a hacker. Juice jacking poses a security threat at public charging stations at airports, shopping malls and other public places that provide free charging stations for mobile, tablet, and laptop devices. 

Cybercriminals can either hack into the public charging spot or download malware or viruses through the USB port into your system. When you plug your phone, laptop, tablet or other such devices for charging at public charging stations, it can download malware to your phone and other such devices, and then hackers can access your personal information or passwords, It is really a problem since hackers can even get access to your bank account for unauthorised transactions by accessing your passwords and personal information. 

Hence it is important to think twice before using public charging spots, as it might lead to serious consequences such as malware, data leak and hacking. Hacking can gain unauthorised access to your personal information by installing malware in your device and they might monitor your device by installing monitor software or spyware to your device. This scam is referred to as juice jacking. 

FBI issued an advisory  warning about using public charging stations:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), In May 2023, advised users to avoid using free charging stations in airports, hotels, or shopping centres. The warning comes as threat actors have figured out ways to inject malware into devices attached to publicly installed USB ports.

Updated Security measures:

We all must have seen public charging points such as airports, shopping malls, metro, and other public places that provide charging stations for mobile devices. But it can be a threat to your stored data on your device. During the charging process, your data can be transferred which can ultimately lead to a data breach. Hence utmost care should be taken to protect your information and data. iPhones and other devices have security measures in place, When you plug your phone into a charging power source, a pop-up appears to ask permission to allow or disallow the transfer of Data. There is also a default setting in the phones where data transfer is disabled. In the latest models, when you plug your device into a new port or a computer, a pop-up appears asking whether the device is trusted or not. 

Two major risks involved in the threat of Juice jacking: 

1. Malware installation: – Malware apps can be used by bad actors to clone your phone data to their device, Your personal data is transferred leading to a data breach. Some types of malware include Trojans, adware, spyware, crypto-miners, etc. Once this malware is injected into your device, It is easy for cybercriminals to extort a ransom to restore the information they have unauthorized access to.
2. Data Theft: It is important to give emphasis to the question of whether your data is protected at public charging stations? When we use a USB cable and connect to a public charging station port, cyber-criminals by injecting malware into the charging port system, can inject the malware into your device or your data can be transferred to the bad actors. USB cords can be exploited by cybercriminals to commit malicious activities.

‍

Best practices: 

• Avoid using public charging stations: Using public charging stations is not safe. It is very possible for a cybercriminal to load malware into a charging station with a USB cord. Hence It is advisable not to use public charging spots, try to make sure you charge your phone, and laptop devices in your car, at home or office so it will help you to avoid public charging stations.
• Alternative method of charging: You can carry a power bank along with you to avoid the use of public charging stations.
• Lock your phone: Lock your phone once connected to the charging port. Locking your device once connected to the charging station will prevent it from being able to sync or transfer data.
• Software update: It is important to enable and use your device’s software security measures. Mobile devices have certain technical protections against such vulnerabilities and security threats. 
• Review Settings: Disable your device’s option to automatically transfer data when a charging cable is connected. This is the default on iOS devices. Android users should disable this option in the Settings app. If your device displays a prompt asking you to “trust this computer,” it means you are connected to another device, not simply a power outlet. Deny the permission, as trusting the computer will enable data transfers to and from your device.  So when you plug your device into a USB port and a prompt appears asking permission to "share data" or “trust this computer” or “charge only,” always select “charge only.”

Conclusion:

Cybercriminals or bad actors exploit public charging stations. There have been incidents where malware was planted in the system by the use of a USB cord, During the charging process, the USB cord opens a path into your device that a cybercriminal can exploit, which means the devices can exchange data. That's called juice jacking. Hence avoid using public charging stations, our safety is in our hands and it is significantly important to give priority to best practices and stay protected in the evolving digital landscape. 

References: 

• https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/fbi-issue-warning-about-juice-jacking-when-using-free-cell-phone-charging-kiosks/
• https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/juice-jacking/#:~:text=Avoid%20public%20charging%20stations,guaranteed%20success%20with%20this%20method
• https://www.fcc.gov/juice-jacking-tips-to-avoid-it

‍