Asia-Pacific cybersecurity insight

Risk level and what to do first, detail after.

Last updated: MYT

  • 12Jurisdictions covered
  • 6Items this week
  • 0Daily-report items and published alerts flagged exploited or KEV-listed
  • 12 of 12Jurisdictions with limited automated coverage

Heat map of 12 jurisdictions

A schematic, not a map: all tiles are the same size and are grouped by region only. It shows no territory, border or status.

Schematic tile chart of 12 jurisdictions: South Korea ~72, High; Bangladesh ~65, Medium-high; Philippines ~62, Medium-high; Vietnam ~60, Medium-high; Indonesia ~58, Medium-high; Sri Lanka ~58, Medium-high; Japan ~52, Medium; Thailand ~47, Medium; Malaysia ~44, Medium; Hong Kong ~38, Medium; Macao ~35, Medium; Singapore ~28, Low

Tap a tile to see its score card, then “Open page” to go to the country page.

  • Low
  • Medium
  • Medium-high
  • High

Each tile shows the risk score (~ means approximate), the risk level in words and a pattern; colour is never the only signal.

Scores and risk labels are our own assessment, based on public sources as of the date shown. They are opinions, not findings or statements of fact about any government, organisation or group.

A dashed outline marked “limited”: automated coverage for this jurisdiction is limited.

Heat map of 12 jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Region Risk score Risk level U.S. coercion tier Maturity Composite index Quadrant Automated coverage
South Korea East Asia ~72 HighSeed score Medium-high 80CMM level: Level 5 Optimising 0.9Broadly balanced Under pressure Limited automated coverage
Bangladesh South Asia ~65 Medium-highSeed score Low 42CMM level: Level 3 Defined 1.55High-risk gap Nurture Limited automated coverage
Philippines Southeast Asia ~62 Medium-highSeed score Medium-high 58CMM level: Level 3 Defined 1.07Capability under pressure Nurture Limited automated coverage
Vietnam Southeast Asia ~60 Medium-highSeed score Medium 55CMM level: Level 3 Defined 1.09Capability under pressure Nurture Limited automated coverage
Indonesia Southeast Asia ~58 Medium-highSeed score Medium-low 52CMM level: Level 3 Defined 1.12Capability under pressure Nurture Limited automated coverage
Sri Lanka South Asia ~58 Medium-highSeed score Low 45CMM level: Level 3 Defined 1.29High-risk gap Nurture Limited automated coverage
Japan East Asia ~52 MediumSeed score High 82CMM level: Level 5 Optimising 0.63Broadly balanced Under pressure Limited automated coverage
Thailand Southeast Asia ~47 MediumSeed score Medium-low 62CMM level: Level 4 Managed 0.76Broadly balanced Benchmark Limited automated coverage
Malaysia Southeast Asia ~44 MediumSeed score Medium-low 65CMM level: Level 4 Managed 0.68Broadly balanced Benchmark Limited automated coverage
Hong Kong East Asia ~38 MediumSeed score Low 78CMM level: Level 4 Managed 0.49Controllable Benchmark Limited automated coverage
Macao East Asia ~35 MediumSeed score Low 65CMM level: Level 4 Managed 0.54Controllable Benchmark Limited automated coverage
Singapore Southeast Asia ~28 LowSeed score Medium 78CMM level: Level 4 Managed 0.36Controllable Benchmark Limited automated coverage

Scores and risk labels are our own assessment, based on public sources as of the date shown. They are opinions, not findings or statements of fact about any government, organisation or group.

Risk–maturity matrix preview

Risk–maturity matrix Maturity runs along the horizontal axis and risk along the vertical axis; maturity 60 and risk 50 are the dividing lines that sort the 12 jurisdictions into four quadrants. 30405060708090 20304050607080 Maturity Risk score Benchmark Under pressure Nurture Potential Singapore: Maturity 78, Risk score ~28, Low SG Malaysia: Maturity 65, Risk score ~44, Medium MY Indonesia: Maturity 52, Risk score ~58, Medium-high ID Thailand: Maturity 62, Risk score ~47, Medium TH Vietnam: Maturity 55, Risk score ~60, Medium-high VN Philippines: Maturity 58, Risk score ~62, Medium-high PH Japan: Maturity 82, Risk score ~52, Medium JP South Korea: Maturity 80, Risk score ~72, High KR Hong Kong: Maturity 78, Risk score ~38, Medium HK Macao: Maturity 65, Risk score ~35, Medium MO Bangladesh: Maturity 42, Risk score ~65, Medium-high BD Sri Lanka: Maturity 45, Risk score ~58, Medium-high LK
Maturity runs along the horizontal axis and risk along the vertical axis; maturity 60 and risk 50 are the dividing lines that sort the 12 jurisdictions into four quadrants. ~ means approximate.

Scores and risk labels are our own assessment, based on public sources as of the date shown. They are opinions, not findings or statements of fact about any government, organisation or group.

Show data table
Risk–maturity matrix
JurisdictionMaturityRisk scoreRisk levelQuadrant
Singapore78~28LowBenchmark
Malaysia65~44MediumBenchmark
Indonesia52~58Medium-highNurture
Thailand62~47MediumBenchmark
Vietnam55~60Medium-highNurture
Philippines58~62Medium-highNurture
Japan82~52MediumUnder pressure
South Korea80~72HighUnder pressure
Hong Kong78~38MediumBenchmark
Macao65~35MediumBenchmark
Bangladesh42~65Medium-highNurture
Sri Lanka45~58Medium-highNurture

Country risk ranking

Highest risk score first; ~ means approximate.

  1. South Korea ~72 High
  2. Bangladesh ~65 Medium-high
  3. Philippines ~62 Medium-high
  4. Vietnam ~60 Medium-high
  5. Indonesia ~58 Medium-high
  6. Sri Lanka ~58 Medium-high
  7. Japan ~52 Medium
  8. Thailand ~47 Medium
  9. Malaysia ~44 Medium
  10. Hong Kong ~38 Medium
  11. Macao ~35 Medium
  12. Singapore ~28 Low

High-risk alerts

No high-risk alert is currently published.

Today's key items

1 Medium-high Passed 3-level verification (automated) High

CVE-2026-108804 (opens in a new window)

CVSS 10.0 (NVD record)

The web management backend of TRENDnet TEW-751DR, TEW-752DRU, and TEW733GR has an operating system command injection vulnerability. It is recommended to check for affected devices promptly and take mitigation measures.

Why it matters: The vulnerability is located in the web management backend, and manipulating a parameter can lead to command injection, which may allow the device to be taken over. The affected models and firmware versions are 1.03B01/1.03B03. The source does not state whether a patch is available or whether the vulnerability has been exploited in practice. Unconfirmed

Recommended actions: Check whether TEW-751DR, TEW-752DRU, or TEW733GR devices are deployed in the network, and confirm whether the firmware version is 1.03B01 or 1.03B03.

Provenance
Sources and excerpts
NVD CVE API 2.0
Collected 2026-10-12 21:20 UTC
Source link (opens in a new window)
2 Medium-high Passed 3-level verification (automated) High

CVE-2026-108894 (opens in a new window)

CVSS 9.9 (NVD record)

A security flaw has been found in the static route handling component of Linksys E1700 1.0.0.4.003, involving the addStaticRoute function. Impact and exploitation details. Unconfirmed

Why it matters: The affected part is the web management interface parameter handling in the router firmware. Vendors and operators should promptly verify device models and versions. Severity, exploitability, and patch status are not stated in the source. Unconfirmed

Recommended actions: Check whether the network contains devices running Linksys E1700 1.0.0.4.003 firmware

Provenance
Sources and excerpts
NVD CVE API 2.0
Collected 2026-10-12 21:20 UTC
Source link (opens in a new window)
3 Medium-high Passed 3-level verification (automated) High

CVE-2026-108929 (opens in a new window)

CVSS 9.9 (NVD record)

A parameter injection vulnerability exists in the DDNS component of Netcore NR268 1.7.121109 and can be exploited remotely. Immediate review and mitigation of exposure are recommended.

Why it matters: The vulnerability resides in the router's DDNS configuration interface, and attacks can be launched remotely, potentially affecting devices deployed by carriers and enterprises. The source currently does not state patch status, exploitation status, or scope of impact, so these must be assessed independently. Unconfirmed

Recommended actions: Inventory devices in the network running Netcore NR268 1.7.121109

Provenance
Sources and excerpts
NVD CVE API 2.0
Collected 2026-10-12 21:20 UTC
Source link (opens in a new window)

Scores and risk labels are our own assessment, based on public sources as of the date shown. They are opinions, not findings or statements of fact about any government, organisation or group.

View all

Latest regulatory items

No new regulatory item yet; the most recently verified Law Register records are listed below.

  • Cybersecurity Act
    Cybersecurity Act: in force, As of 2026-10-12 · Source (opens in a new window)
  • Cybersecurity (Amendment) Act 2024
    Cybersecurity (Amendment) Act 2024: partly in force, As of 2026-10-12 · Source (opens in a new window)
  • Computer Misuse Act 1993
    Computer Misuse Act 1993: in force, As of 2026-10-12 · Source (opens in a new window)
  • Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2025
    Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2025 (Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2025 (No. 21 of 2025)): enacted, not yet in force, As of 2026-10-12 · Source (opens in a new window)
  • Cyber Security Act 2024
    Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cyber Security Act 2024 [Act 854]): in force, As of 2026-10-12 · Source (opens in a new window)
  • Cyber Security (Notification of Cyber Security Incident) Regulations 2024 and related regulations
    Status under re-verification · Last verified: 2026-10-12 · Source (opens in a new window)

View all

Weekly highlights

Not generated yet: this product needs model-written narrative, and template mode never invents content.

Modules