The Illusion of Readiness: Understanding the Cyber Landscape in Brazil
-
July 24, 2026
-
Brazil’s digital environment is under pressure. The average cybersecurity maturity of Brazilian companies stands at 58% according to the latest Digital Risks Index from the Markets Innovation & Technology Institute (“MiTi”).1The annual report, sponsored by FTI Consulting, surveyed hundreds of Brazilian organizations on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and data governance.2 The findings measure compliance readiness against the Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (“LGPD”), Brazil’s primary data protection law.
While the findings show slight improvement from 2024 (53%), Brazilian companies continue to trail global peers in cybersecurity maturity. This gap underscores the structural vulnerabilities and governance challenges that still define the country’s risk landscape.3
The current maturity score can be interpreted as intermediate sophistication: controls and practices are in place, but with gaps in consistency, governance and continuous execution. Correspondingly, the Digital Risks Index translates this maturity score into an average current risk level of 44% (Medium), meaning that while Brazil maintains a reasonable base of digital capabilities, companies still face significant exposure to incidents that can materially impact operations, reputation and financial performance, such as data breaches, operational disruptions, fraud, regulatory sanctions and legal and ethical exposure. Still, this exposure is not evenly distributed. Inconsistency in implementation, rather than absence of controls, is where incidents tend to occur.
The Widespread Implications of a Cyber Incident
The gap between maturity and resilience surfaces in specific, high-stakes moments. The sophistication of cyber attacks ranks among the top challenges facing Brazilian companies, and the threat is escalating. As threat actors increasingly use generative artificial intelligence and intelligent agents, the attack surface expands: threats are more difficult to defend against and companies are faced with a greater need for cyber resilience.
The regulatory environment is responding in turn: stricter cybersecurity requirements for companies and greater legal and financial liability when breaches occur. Brazil’s data protection law is applied inconsistently, with only 56% of companies reporting full or institutionalized LGPD compliance.4 Thus, regulatory compliance ranks as a primary future challenge for 26% of respondents.5
Beyond regulatory action, the financial impact of a cyber incident can be substantial. In 2025, the average estimated value per significant incident reached USD 31.99 million, with impacts to the most exposed sectors (Financial Services, Telecommunications, Industry and Retail) ranging from USD 70.87 million to USD 98.43 million per crisis, reflecting higher exposure driven by asset criticality and regulatory complexity in those industries.6 And, although financial exposure of this magnitude commands boardroom attention, 72% of respondents consider reputational damage even more critical.7
Where Exposure is Growing
When confidence outpaces capability. A lack of AI governance is exacerbating existing gaps between perceived cybersecurity preparedness and actual response capabilities. Across Brazilian organizations, incident preparedness remains structurally weak: only 30% of companies conduct regular training or structured simulations for cyber incident response, while 45% conduct no incident response training or cyber crisis simulations at all.8
This disconnect appears to contradict findings in The Seventh Annual General Counsel Report from FTI Consulting and Relativity, which found that data privacy and data protection rank as top five risks among general counsel.9 Organizations recognize the significant cybersecurity risks they face and generally believe they are taking sufficient preparedness measures. In practice, however, those measures frequently fall short when tested by a real-world incident. The volume and sophistication of cyber attacks is outpacing organizations’ ability to respond, a reality underscored by nearly one-third of general counsel stating that incident response places growing demands on the legal department and more than one-third citing data breaches as a top driver of their organization’s disputes and investigations activity.10
When innovation outpaces governance. In addition to external risk from AI, institutional use of AI is a growing source of exposure when adoption precedes robust controls, which is the reality within many organizations. While the technology has advanced as a business priority and many general counsel have expressed data privacy and security concerns related to the use of generative AI, just 22% of participants in the MiTi report have a proactive cybersecurity strategy for AI systems. The remaining 78% cite basic or limited initiatives, or no management at all.11 Without adequate governance over AI use, personal data could be misused, intellectual property infringement or loss could occur and automated decision-making could result in legal violations, compliance failures or reputational damage.
When crisis becomes the story. When a cyber incident occurs, how an organization handles the response can have long-term institutional and reputational consequences. Yet, the MiTi data reveals a striking gap in communications preparedness and crisis readiness: only 19% of Brazilian companies have a structured communications process and stakeholder engagement plan for cyber incidents. In practice, response plans tend to be highly technical, failing to account for the broader perception of the organization as it navigates from crisis to control.12
A cyber crisis can destabilize every aspect of a company, not just the technical infrastructure. And the reputational damage, albeit harder to quantify, can contribute significantly to the financial downsides. An organized and integrated stakeholder engagement and communications strategy can greatly maintain and enhance trust in high-stakes moments and mitigate the impacts of a cybersecurity incident. And practice is an essential component of this multidisciplinary strategy: simulation exercises that go beyond technical response, encouraging coordination among areas with conflicting priorities, are essential and a proven way to close this readiness gap.
From Risk to Resilience
Shifts in governance, preparation and communication are necessary to protect Brazilian companies operating in the current digital risk landscape. The articles that follow will examine three dimensions where this tension is most consequential: the incident response capabilities that determine whether a breach is contained or compounded, the widening governance gap as AI adoption and data privacy obligations accelerate faster than internal controls, and the reputational stakes that make how a company communicates through a crisis as important as its technical response.
Footnotes:
1: Markets Innovation & Technology Institute (“MiTi”), “Digital Risks 2025” (6 May 2026)
2:The Digital Risks Index is an annual report conducted by Markets Innovation & Technology Institute, a Brazilian nonprofit focused on digital maturity. The 2025 Index, published in February 2026, surveyed 234 organizations on cybersecurity, 142 on data governance and 93 on artificial intelligence. The methodology is vendor-agnostic and built on internationally recognized frameworks including NIST SP 800-53, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and CIS Controls v8. The report’s data governance findings also measure compliance readiness against the LGPD. Modeled closely on the GDPR, the LGPD carries enforcement mechanisms including fines and reputational sanctions. Responses were collected via an online questionnaire designed to assess the existence of controls and their formalization, governance and integration into business strategy.
3: MiTi, Digital Risks 2025, supra note 1.
4: Id.
5: Id.
6: Id.
7: Id.
8: Id.
9: FTI Consulting and Relativity, “The Seventh Annual General Counsel Report” (18 February 2026)
10: Id.
11: MiTi, Digital Risks 2025, supra note 1.
12: Id.
Published
July 24, 2026
Key Contacts
Managing Director, Head of Brazil Strategic Communications
Senior Managing Director
Senior Director
Senior Director