Regional assessment data records China, India, Australia, Japan and South Korea together accounting for 61.78% of tracked incidents, with China at 15.4% and India at 14.7%. Australia recorded 2,537 incidents, Japan 2,282, and Singapore 963.
Population Is Doing Most Of The Work
China and India lead by incident count and have the largest populations and internet user bases in the region. Australia at 2,537 incidents has a population under 30 million.
Per capita, the ordering inverts entirely. Absolute counts describe where the most people are online, which is not the same question as where risk is concentrated — and it is the question these tables are usually read as answering.
And Detection Capability Distorts The Rest
A tracked incident requires somebody to notice, classify and report it. Countries with mature computer emergency response teams, mandatory reporting and active security industries generate more tracked incidents at any given level of underlying activity.
Australia and Singapore both have substantial national cyber capability relative to their size, which is a plausible reason their counts look high. The corpus made the same point about the healthcare sector at 25-0630: sectors and countries that measure appear worse than those that do not.
The Comparison This Desk Cannot Avoid
This database contains a handful of files concerning any of these five countries. It contains dozens concerning the United States and the United Kingdom.
That is not a judgement about where incidents occur. It is a direct consequence of which jurisdictions require disclosure in English, and it is the subject of 25-1225.
Built on published regional assessment data, listed below. Incident counts are of tracked incidents and are not normalised for population, internet penetration or detection capability. Corrections: corrections@forensicpost.com.