Latin America was characterised during 2025 as the riskiest region globally for cyberattacks, on the basis of attack volumes running around 35% above the global average.
Three Things A Regional Ranking Could Mean
That organisations there are attacked more. That they are compromised more. That the consequences are worse. These are different claims requiring different evidence, and rankings routinely conflate them.
A volume-based ranking measures the first, and only as observed by a particular vendor’s sensors — the caution at 25-1115 and 26-0513. Attempted attacks reaching an organisation are not a measure of its security.
The Corpus Applies This Consistently Or Not At All
This desk discounted a US ranking at 25-0718 and a country distribution at 25-1206. It has to do the same here, in a direction that is less comfortable: a region being described as worst is exactly the claim that most needs the discount, because it carries consequences for how organisations there are treated commercially.
Cyber insurance pricing, supplier due diligence and investment risk assessment all consume rankings like this one.
What Would Establish A Real Regional Difference
Compromise rates per organisation, measured the same way in each region. Incident outcomes. Recovery times. None of these appear in the material this desk reviewed.
The one finding that survives is at 25-1116: the regional victim distribution tracks economic size, which is what opportunistic targeting looks like. That is evidence against exceptionalism rather than for it.
Built on published regional research, listed below. It examines what a ranking claim can support rather than disputing the underlying measurements. Corrections: corrections@forensicpost.com.