Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 (WEF): Global Landscape… and What It Means for Egypt
WEF_Global_Cybersecurity_Outlook_2026_ENCC
Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 (WEF): Global Landscape… and What It Means for Egypt
A professional ENCC English brief: key facts ▸ survey-based methodology ▸ 2026 drivers (AI, geopolitics, cyber-enabled fraud) ▸ regional contrasts (MENA vs others) ▸ Egypt lens (policy reading, not a rank) ▸ priorities ▸ an actionable 6–24 month roadmap with measurable KPIs.
Lead:
Key facts ▸ survey- and expert-informed methodology ▸ three drivers shaping 2026 (AI, geopolitics, cyber-enabled fraud) ▸ striking regional differences (MENA vs other regions) ▸ Egypt presented as a policy-relevant, measurable readiness reading (not a numeric ranking) ▸ priority gaps and a practical reform roadmap (6–24 months).
(1) Overview
Cybersecurity is no longer a narrow IT concern; it has become a decisive factor for economic stability, public trust, and service continuity—especially as digitalization accelerates, reliance on digital supply chains expands (cloud/providers/third parties), and attacks increasingly target critical infrastructure and essential services. The World Economic Forum’s Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 arrives at a moment where three pressure engines converge: AI amplifying both attacker and defender capabilities, geopolitical fragmentation complicating trust and cross-border information exchange, and an expanding “cyber inequity” gap between organizations that can keep pace and those falling behind.
For Egypt, the release is highly relevant because competitiveness across trade, finance, tourism, telecoms, energy, and transport is directly shaped by the ability of government and the private sector to manage cyber-enabled fraud risks, secure critical infrastructure, control third-party exposure, and build skills aligned with rapid adoption of AI-based solutions. The report adds a practical lens: it is not enough to “have policies”—what matters is execution readiness (governance, measurement, testing, and partnerships) in a rapidly changing threat environment.
(2) Data Card
Brief:
This edition is an annual analytical report by the World Economic Forum—produced in partnership with Accenture—based on a global survey and expert engagements. It presents trends, risks, and leadership priorities for 2026, without publishing a country ranking or an “official score” for each country.
Structured list (concise):
- Report name (EN/AR): Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 / التوقعات العالمية للأمن السيبراني 2026
- Issuer + partner: World Economic Forum (WEF) + Accenture
- Latest official edition label: 2026 (5th edition in the series)
- Publication date (ISO): 2026-01-12
- Frequency: Annual
- Type: Analytical (non-ranked; no country league table)
- Status: Active ✅
- Official landing: publication page on weforum.org
- Methodology: Appendix: Methodology in the “In full / online reader”
- Coverage (survey): 873 responses from 99 countries; 804 qualified respondents from 92 countries after validation, including 105 CEOs and 316 CISOs.
Mini table:
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Issuer | World Economic Forum (WEF) |
| Partner | Accenture |
| Official edition | 2026 (5th edition) |
| Date | 2026-01-12 |
| Survey coverage | 873 (99 countries) → 804 qualified (92 countries) |
(3) Methodology & Official Axes
3.1 Methodology (how findings were built)
- Core dataset: the “GCO 2026” survey is the primary dataset; 19 questions for all participants plus private-sector add-ons and demographic questions; fielded between 25 Aug 2025 and 1 Oct 2025.
- Sample size & mix: 873 respondents from 99 countries, with 804 qualified from 92 countries after validation; strong leadership representation (CEOs/CISOs and others).
- Qualitative deepening: expert focus groups (52 participants) plus workshops with WEF networks (including sessions in July and Oct 2025) to support interpretation.
> Egypt-relevant reading: the results reflect leadership perceptions and choices supported by survey evidence and practitioner input. They help prioritize reforms and build national/sector KPIs, but they are not an “official Egypt score” or a country rank.
3.2 Official “themes” as presented in the report (EN framing)
The edition presents 2026 drivers through key report themes, including (official headings):
- AI is reshaping risk, accelerating both offence and defence
- Geopolitics is a defining feature of cybersecurity
- The evolving landscape of cybercrime: AI, fraud and the global response
- Cyber resilience is the key to safeguarding economic value
- Securing supply chains amid opacity and concentration risks
- Drivers of cyber inequity in 2026
- Future threat vectors are emerging in silence
(4) Global & Regional Signals
(A) Global signals
1) AI accelerates a “cyber arms race”
- 94% identify AI as the biggest driver of change in cybersecurity over the next year.
- Organizations assessing the security of AI tools increased from 37% (2025) to 64% (2026).
- 87% report rising AI-related vulnerabilities/risks in 2025; additional concerns include GenAI-linked data leakage (34%) and stronger adversary capabilities (29%).
2) Geopolitics reshapes risk and response
- 64% incorporate geopolitically motivated attacks (disruption of critical infrastructure / espionage) into their planning.
- 91% of the largest organizations adjusted strategies due to geopolitical volatility.
- 31% report low confidence in their country’s ability to respond to major attacks on critical infrastructure (vs 26% the year prior).
3) Cyber-enabled fraud rises to the top of leadership concern
- 73% said they (or someone in their network) were personally affected by cyber-enabled fraud in 2025.
- WEF’s press framing notes that cyber-enabled fraud surpassed ransomware/extortion as the top CEO concern in this edition.
4) Supply chains are a widening systemic weakness
- 65% of large companies cite third-party/supply-chain risks as the biggest resilience obstacle (up from 54% in 2025).
(B) Expanded regional comparison (MENA / Africa signals)
- MENA: survey respondents in MENA reported relatively high confidence in protecting critical infrastructure (84%)—a sharp contrast with other regions.
- Latin America & Caribbean (comparison): comparable confidence was 13%.
- Sub-Saharan Africa signal: WEF press framing notes persistent skills gaps; 63% of organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa face skills shortfalls to meet security goals.
- By sector: 23% of public sector organizations report inadequate cyber resilience capabilities—relevant given the public sector’s role in critical infrastructure.
Synthesis: the gap is not the “existence of risk” but speed of institutional adaptation (AI governance, geopolitical risk handling, fraud response, and third-party controls) and equity of capability distribution across sectors, sizes, and regions.
(5) Egypt Lens (Facts)
Mandatory method note: Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 does not assign country rankings or an official “Egypt score”. Egypt is therefore presented here as a measurable policy readiness reading anchored to the report’s survey evidence and regional signals.
How to read “Egypt’s position” practically without a rank
- Egypt sits within the MENA region, which shows high confidence (84%) in protecting critical infrastructure—useful as a regional signal, not a final judgement. Convert confidence into readiness KPIs (detect/respond time, periodic exercises, coverage of critical sectors, maturity of third-party risk management).
- The report’s baseline expectation for all economies—including Egypt—is readiness for three concurrent waves: AI security governance, geopolitically driven threats to services and infrastructure, and rising cyber-enabled fraud affecting households and firms.
(6) Summary Tables
Table 1 (Mandatory): “Main axis ↔ sub-item ↔ Egypt status ↔ brief policy note”
> Egypt status is a policy description (no official rank).
| Main axis | Sub-item (as framed in the report) | Egypt status (descriptor) | Brief policy note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI | Assessing security of AI tools in organizations | Potential governance gap | Adopt minimum requirements for AI security assessments, aligned with the global jump from 37%→64%. |
| AI | Rising AI/GenAI vulnerabilities and risks | Rising risk | Strengthen data/model controls and train incident response teams on GenAI data-leak and AI-enabled attack scenarios. |
| Geopolitics | Geopolitically motivated attacks | Critical priority | Align critical infrastructure security with disruption/espionage scenarios (64% include this in strategy). |
| National confidence | Confidence in protecting critical infrastructure | Regional confidence signal | Translate “high MENA confidence (84%)” into performance KPIs and joint exercises. |
| Fraud | Cyber-enabled fraud prevalence and impact | Direct pressure on trust | Establish a national anti-fraud coalition (73% personally/network affected in 2025). |
| Supply chains | Third-party / supply-chain risk | Systemic weakness | Introduce mandatory third-party controls for critical sectors (65% of large firms see it as the biggest barrier). |
| Public sector | Public-sector cyber resilience adequacy | Execution risk | Address the gap given 23% of public organizations globally report inadequate capabilities. |
| Skills | Cybersecurity skills gap | Competitiveness constraint | Scale practical learning paths and certifications; the report highlights severe gaps in multiple regions (e.g., 63% SSA). |
Table 2 (Optional): Quick regional comparison (confidence in protecting critical infrastructure)
| Comparison | % | Decision-maker implication |
|---|---|---|
| MENA | 84% | High confidence should be translated into tested, measured capabilities. |
| Latin America & Caribbean | 13% | Large confidence/readiness gap highlights regional variance. |
| Global (low confidence in response) | 31% | Rising pressure on national response capacity as a policy risk signal. |
(7) Gap Analysis & Top 5 Priorities
- AI security governance: expanding AI/GenAI risks threaten data and trust; action: a regulatory/operational framework for AI security assessment in critical entities.
- Critical infrastructure readiness: regional confidence must be measured and tested; action: national joint exercises and response-time KPIs.
- Cyber-enabled fraud epidemic: direct social and economic impact; action: an enforcement/banking/telecom coalition to reduce fraud and phishing.
- Third-party risk: more complex digital supply chains; action: contractual baseline controls and periodic vendor assessments for critical sectors.
- Skills gap: talent shortages weaken execution; action: training paths, certifications, and retention aligned with market needs.
(8) Reform Roadmap (6–24 months)
> An execution-ready roadmap that translates the report’s trends into actions and measurable KPIs.
| Action | Lead / coordinator + partners | Measurable KPI | Horizon | Quick linkage (Vision 2030 / SDGs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) “AI Security Governance” baseline for critical sectors | National cyber coordination + sector regulators + major operators | % of critical entities applying AI security assessments (annual target) | 6–12 months | Digital transformation / SDG 9 |
| 2) Critical infrastructure readiness programme (exercises + pen-test/recovery) | Government + energy/transport/telecom/finance operators | Incident response time in simulations + number of annual exercises | 6–24 months | Institutions/security / SDG 16 |
| 3) Cyber-enabled fraud fusion cell (national coalition) | Law enforcement + banking + telecom + digital platforms | Reduction in fraud reports/success rates + transaction freeze time | 6–12 months | Consumer protection / SDG 16 |
| 4) National TPRM standard for critical sectors | Regulators + private sector + industry chambers | % of high-risk vendors assessed/audited | 12–24 months | Competitiveness/industry / SDG 9, SDG 17 |
| 5) National skills track (hands-on training + certification) | Education/training + private sector + government entities | Number of certified professionals per year + fill rate of cyber roles | 12–24 months | Human capital / SDG 4, SDG 8 |
| 6) Threat intelligence sharing & unified incident reporting platform | National coordinator + security providers + critical sectors | # of participating entities + reporting rate + “lessons learned” metrics | 6–24 months | Partnerships/governance / SDG 17 |
(9) Focused Conclusion
Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 paints a clear picture: 2026 is not simply a year of “more cyber risk”, but a year of faster, more interconnected risk—driven by AI, amplified by geopolitics, and made concrete by cyber-enabled fraud affecting daily life for firms and households.
While the report does not provide a country rank for Egypt, it sets a practical standard: convert confidence—such as MENA’s elevated signal—into measured readiness through AI security governance, critical infrastructure exercises, rigorous third-party controls, fraud coalitions, and sustained investment in skills to close the execution gap.
Next step for ENCC: embed this release’s indicators into a periodic “digital resilience” monitoring track for Egypt’s competitiveness, and link it to a policy dialogue with partners to adopt followable national KPIs.
Official References (selected)
- Landing: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-cybersecurity-outlook-2026/
- Digest: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-cybersecurity-outlook-2026/digest/
- In full: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-cybersecurity-outlook-2026/in-full/
- Appendix (Methodology): https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-cybersecurity-outlook-2026/in-full/appendix-methodology-7cc9376bbc/
Notes & Data Limits
- This is an analytical, non-ranked report; it does not publish a country league table or “official score” for Egypt.
- All statements above adhere to the provided source text and the cited WEF official pages; no additional figures were introduced.
- Where action KPIs require baselines, they should be established in the first monitoring cycle (baseline not assumed).