South Korea’s AI Basic Act - A New Chapter in Governing Artificial Intelligence
Introduction
In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.
What the AI Basic Act Covers
The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.
The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.
Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.
Guardrails for Safety and Accountability
One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.
The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.
The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.
These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised.
Transparency and Labelling Requirements
The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.
The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.
The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.
Data Privacy and User Protection
The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.
The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.
Accountability and Governance Infrastructure
The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.
This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.
Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support
Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.
This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.
What This Means Globally
The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.
Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.
Conclusion
The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.
Sources
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws
- https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf
- https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea
- https://aibasicact.kr/
- https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026
- https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/
Related Blogs
Introduction
In the sprawling online world, trusted relationships are frequently taken advantage of by cybercriminals seeking to penetrate guarded systems. The Watering Hole Attack is one advanced method, which focuses on a user’s ecosystem by compromising the genuine sites they often use. This attack method is different from phishing or direct attacks as it quietly exploits the everyday browsing of the target to serve malicious content. The quiet and exact nature of watering hole attacks makes them prevalent amongst Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups, especially in conjunction with state-sponsored cyber-espionage operations.
What Qualifies as a Watering Hole Attack?
A Watering Hole Attack targets and infects a trusted website. The targeted website is one that is used by a particular organization or community, such as a specific industry sector. This type of cyberattack is analogous to the method of attack used by animals and predators waiting by the water’s edge for prey to drink. Attackers prey on their targets by injecting malicious code, such as an exploit kit or malware loader, into websites that are popular with their victims. These victims are then infected when they visit said websites unknowingly. This opens as a gateway for attackers to infiltrate corporate systems, harvest credentials, and pivot across internal networks.
How Watering Hole Attacks Unfold
The attack lifecycle usually progresses as follows:
- Reconnaissance - Attackers gather intelligence on the websites frequented by the target audience, including specialized communities, partner websites, or local news sites.
- Website Exploitation - Through the use of outdated CMS software and insecure plugins, attackers gain access to the target website and insert malicious code such as JS or iframe redirections.
- Delivery and Exploitation - The visitor’s browser executes the malicious code injected into the page. The code might include a redirection payload which sends the user to an exploit kit that checks the user’s browser, plugins, operating system, and other components for vulnerabilities.
- Infection and Persistence - The infected system malware such as RATs, keyloggers, or backdoors. These enable lateral and long-term movements within the organisation for espionage.
- Command and Control (C2) - For further instructions, additional payload delivery, and stolen data retrieval, infected devices connect to servers managed by the attackers.
Key Features of Watering Hole Attacks
- Indirect Approach: Instead of going after the main target, attackers focus on sites that the main target trusts.
- Supply-Chain-Like Impact: An infected industry portal can affect many companies at the same time.
- Low Profile: It is difficult to identify since the traffic comes from real websites.
- Advanced Customization: Exploit kits are known to specialize in making custom payloads for specific browsers or OS versions to increase the chance of success.
Why Are These Attacks Dangerous?
Worming hole attacks shift the battlefield to new grounds in cyber warfare on the web. They eliminate the need for firewalls, email shields, and other security measures because they operate on the traffic to and from real, trusted websites. When the attacks work as intended, the following consequences can be expected:
- Stealing Credentials: Including privileged accounts and VPN credentials.
- Espionage: Theft of intellectual property, defense blueprints, or government confidential information.
- Supply Chain Attacks: Resulting in a series of infections among related companies.
- Zero-Day Exploits: Including automated attacks using zero-day exploits for full damage.
Incidents of Primary Concern
The implications of watering hole attacks have been felt in the real world for quite some time. An example from 2019 reveals this, where a known VoIP firm’s site was compromised and used to spread data-stealing malware to its users. Likewise, in 2014, the Operation Snowman campaign—which seems to have a state-backed origin—attempted to infect users of a U.S. veterans’ portal in order to gain access to visitors from government, defense, and related fields. Rounding up the list, in 2021, cybercriminals attacked regional publications focusing on energy, using the publications to spread malware to company officials and engineers working on critical infrastructure, as well as to steal data from their systems. These attacks show the widespread and dangerous impact of watering hole attacks in the world of cybersecurity.
Detection Issues
Due to the following reasons, traditional approaches to security fail to detect watering hole attacks:
- Use of Authentic Websites: Attacks involving trusted and popular domains evade detection via blacklisting.
- Encrypted Traffic: Delivering payloads over HTTPS conceals malicious scripts from being inspected at the network level.
- Fileless Methods: Using in-memory execution is a modern campaign technique, and detection based on signatures is futile.
Mitigation Strategies
To effectively neutralize the threat of watering hole attacks, an organization should implement a defense-in-depth strategy that incorporates the following elements:
- Patch Management and Hardening -
- Conduct routine updates on operating systems, web browsers, and extensions to eliminate exploit opportunities.
- Either remove or reduce the use of high-risk elements such as Flash and Java, if feasible.
- Network Segmentation - Minimize lateral movement by isolating critical systems from the general user network.
- Behavioral Analytics - Implement Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools to oversee unusual behaviors on processes—for example, script execution or dubious outgoing connections.
- DNS Filtering and Web Isolation - Implement DNS-layer security to deny access to known malicious domains and use browser isolation for dangerous sites.
- Threat Intelligence Integration - Track watering hole threats and campaigns for indicators of compromise (IoCs) on advisories and threat feeds.
- Multi-Layer Email and Web Security - Use web gateways integrated with dynamic content scanning, heuristic analysis, and sandboxing.
- Zero Trust Architecture - Apply least privilege access, require device attestation, and continuous authentication for accessing sensitive resources.
Incident Response Best Practices
- Forensic Analysis: Check affected endpoints for any mechanisms set up for persistence and communication with C2 servers.
- Log Review: Look through proxy, DNS, and firewall logs to detect suspicious traffic.
- Threat Hunting: Search your environment for known Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) related to recent watering hole attacks.
- User Awareness Training: Help employees understand the dangers related to visiting external industry websites and promote safe browsing practices.
The Immediate Need for Action
The adoption of cloud computing and remote working models has significantly increased the attack surface for watering hole attacks. Trust and healthcare sectors are increasingly targeted by nation-state groups and cybercrime gangs using this technique. Not taking action may lead to data leaks, legal fines, and break-ins through the supply chain, which damage the trustworthiness and operational capacity of the enterprise.
Conclusion
Watering hole attacks demonstrate how phishing attacks evolve from a broad attack to a very specific, trust-based attack. Protecting against these advanced attacks requires the zero-trust mindset, adaptive defenses, and continuous monitoring, which is multicentral security. Advanced response measures, proactive threat intelligence, and detection technologies integration enable organizations to turn this silent threat from a lurking predator to a manageable risk.
References
- https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/watering-hole-attack
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watering_hole_attack
- https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/watering-hole
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/watering-hole-attack
Executive Summary:
A misleading video of a child covered in ash allegedly circulating as the evidence for attacks against Hindu minorities in Bangladesh. However, the investigation revealed that the video is actually from Gaza, Palestine, and was filmed following an Israeli airstrike in July 2024. The claim linking the video to Bangladesh is false and misleading.
Claims:
A viral video claims to show a child in Bangladesh covered in ash as evidence of attacks on Hindu minorities.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the viral posts, we conducted a Google Lens search on keyframes of the video, which led us to a X post posted by Quds News Network. The report identified the video as footage from Gaza, Palestine, specifically capturing the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on the Nuseirat refugee camp in July 2024.
The caption of the post reads, “Journalist Hani Mahmoud reports on the deadly Israeli attack yesterday which targeted a UN school in Nuseirat, killing at least 17 people who were sheltering inside and injuring many more.”
To further verify, we examined the video footage where the watermark of Al Jazeera News media could be seen, We found the same post posted on the Instagram account on 14 July, 2024 where we confirmed that the child in the video had survived a massacre caused by the Israeli airstrike on a school shelter in Gaza.
Additionally, we found the same video uploaded to CBS News' YouTube channel, where it was clearly captioned as "Video captures aftermath of Israeli airstrike in Gaza", further confirming its true origin.
We found no credible reports or evidence were found linking this video to any incidents in Bangladesh. This clearly implies that the viral video was falsely attributed to Bangladesh.
Conclusion:
The video circulating on social media which shows a child covered in ash as the evidence of attack against Hindu minorities is false and misleading. The investigation leads that the video originally originated from Gaza, Palestine and documents the aftermath of an Israeli air strike in July 2024.
- Claims: A video shows a child in Bangladesh covered in ash as evidence of attacks on Hindu minorities.
- Claimed by: Facebook
- Fact Check: False & Misleading
Introduction
AI has transformed the way we look at advanced technologies. As the use of AI is evolving, it also raises a concern about AI-based deepfake scams. Where scammers use AI technologies to create deep fake videos, images and audio to deceive people and commit AI-based crimes. Recently a Kerala man fall victim to such a scam. He received a WhatsApp video call, the scammer impersonated the face of the victim’s known friend using AI-based deep fake technology. There is a need for awareness and vigilance to safeguard ourselves from such incidents.
Unveiling the Kerala deep fake video call Scam
The man in Kerala received a WhatsApp video call from a person claiming to be his former colleague in Andhra Pradesh. In actuality, he was the scammer. He asked for help of 40,000 rupees from the Kerala man via google pay. Scammer to gain the trust even mentioned some common friends with the victim. The scammer said that he is at the Dubai airport and urgently need the money for the medical emergency of his sister.
As AI is capable of analysing and processing data such as facial images, videos, and audio creating a realistic deep fake of the same which closely resembles as real one. In the Kerala Deepfake video call scam the scammer made a video call that featured a convincingly similar facial appearance and voice as same to the victim’s colleague which the scammer was impersonating. The Kerala man believing that he was genuinely communicating with his colleague, transferred the money without hesitation. The Kerala man then called his former colleague on the number he had saved earlier in his contact list, and his former colleague said that he has not called him. Kerala man realised that he had been cheated by a scammer, who has used AI-based deep-fake technology to impersonate his former colleague.
Recognising Deepfake Red Flags
Deepfake-based scams are on the rise, as they pose challenges that really make it difficult to distinguish between genuine and fabricated audio, videos and images. Deepfake technology is capable of creating entirely fictional photos and videos from scratch. In fact, audio can be deepfaked too, to create “voice clones” of anyone.
However, there are some red flags which can indicate the authenticity of the content:
- Video quality- Deepfake videos often have compromised or poor video quality, and unusual blur resolution, which might pose a question to its genuineness.
- Looping videos: Deepfake videos often loop or unusually freeze or where the footage repeats itself, indicating that the video content might be fabricated.
- Verify Separately: Whenever you receive requests for such as financial help, verify the situation by directly contacting the person through a separate channel such as a phone call on his primary contact number.
- Be vigilant: Scammers often possess a sense of urgency leading to giving no time to the victim to think upon it and deceiving them by making a quick decision. So be vigilant and cautious when receiving and entertaining such a sudden emergency which demands financial support from you on an urgent basis.
- Report suspicious activity: If you encounter such activities on your social media accounts or through such calls report it to the platform or to the relevant authority.
Conclusion
The advanced nature of AI deepfake technology has introduced challenges in combatting such AI-based cyber crimes. The Kerala man’s case of falling victim to an AI-based deepfake video call and losing Rs 40,000 serves as an alarming need to remain extra vigilant and cautious in the digital age. So in the reported incident where Kerala man received a call from a person appearing as his former colleague but in actuality, he was a scammer and tricking the victim by using AI-based deepfake technology. By being aware of such types of rising scams and following precautionary measures we can protect ourselves from falling victim to such AI-based cyber crimes. And stay protected from such malicious scammers who exploit these technologies for their financial gain. Stay cautious and safe in the ever-evolving digital landscape.
