Middle East Cyber Security Leads Risk Rankings at 81% vs 60% for Geopolitics
Cybersecurity remained the Middle East’s leading organisational risk in 2026 despite a near-doubling in geopolitical concerns, highlighting its shift from a technical threat to a broader challenge for economic resilience and investment, according to the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies (ECES).
Cybersecurity was selected among the five biggest organisational risks by 81% of surveyed Middle Eastern chief audit executives, up from 72% in 2025 and 66% in 2024. By comparison, 60% identified geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty among their top five risks, almost double the 29% recorded a year earlier. The figures measure how frequently each issue was cited among respondents’ five leading concerns rather than the absolute severity of each risk.
The underlying survey covered 296 chief audit executives across 15 Middle Eastern countries, including 39 respondents from Egypt.
The findings reflect economies’ growing dependence on digital infrastructure. Banking, payments, trade, logistics, energy and government services can all be disrupted by a serious cyberattack, even without sensitive information being stolen. ECES therefore places cybersecurity within the wider questions of digital transformation, business continuity and investment confidence.
Risks are also spreading through business networks. Third-party and supply-chain compromise accounted for 17% of Middle Eastern breaches cited by ECES, meaning strong internal defences can still be undermined by a weaker supplier, contractor or service provider. Cybersecurity is consequently becoming an economy-wide exposure rather than one companies can manage entirely in isolation.
Artificial intelligence is widening that risk perimeter. ECES distinguishes cybersecurity — protecting networks and systems — from data protection, which governs how information is collected, stored, transferred and used. The distinction is becoming more important as AI systems rely on large datasets and gain greater ability to interact autonomously with external digital systems.
The challenge was illustrated in May when a Google Gemini model undergoing an independent cybersecurity evaluation accessed systems belonging to three real companies after reaching the open internet and treating them as test targets. Google said the model stopped in all three cases after recognising the targets were real, the affected organisations were informed and testing procedures were changed. The episode highlighted the safeguards required as AI systems gain greater autonomy and access to computer networks.
Egypt Shifts From Frameworks to Execution
Egypt enters this environment with relatively advanced institutional foundations. It is classified in the highest, “role-modelling”, tier of the ITU Global Cybersecurity Index and has established EG-CERT, the Egyptian Supreme Cybersecurity Council, the National Cybersecurity Strategy 2023-2027 and dedicated financial-sector incident-response mechanisms.
ECES nevertheless identifies a gap between formal preparedness and execution. Egypt’s Personal Data Protection Law was issued in 2020, but its executive regulations followed only in November 2025, with enforcement expected from late 2026. The report cites the five-year delay as an example of how slow implementation can prolong uncertainty and leave businesses with limited compliance experience.
Capacity is also uneven. Egypt’s cybersecurity market is estimated at $257mn in 2026 and projected to reach $452mn by 2031, but large enterprises account for about 68% of spending. Smaller companies remain more exposed, while shortages of qualified specialists constrain stronger defences — vulnerabilities that can also pass through supply chains to larger businesses.
ECES accordingly places the priority on turning existing frameworks into operational capacity. It calls for stronger cyber-crisis management and specialised investigation, closer coordination between cybersecurity and data-protection authorities, and clearer breach-reporting procedures. Companies should strengthen board oversight of cyber, third-party and AI risks, while government, universities and financial institutions expand specialist training.
For smaller businesses, the report advocates proportionate compliance requirements alongside deeper regional information sharing, reflecting the risk that weaker suppliers or neighbouring systems can become entry points into better-protected networks.
The central conclusion is that Egypt’s cyber preparedness can no longer be judged solely by the number of strategies, laws or institutions it has established. The decisive test is whether they translate into effective protection across government, large companies and smaller businesses.
Cybersecurity should therefore be treated as part of Egypt’s investment climate, digital competitiveness and economic resilience, rather than merely as a technical function.
Related news:
Egypt Signals Economic Resilience with 5% Growth and $19bn Energy Commitments
US Military Blocks Ad IDs After Commercial Data Exposes Troop Movements
Read also:
Egypt’s Universal Health Insurance: Can the Port Said Model Deliver Nationwide Healthcare Reform?
COMESA’s Digital Investment Map: From Project Listing to Regional Capital Architecture
