If you closely follow the digital landscape in Mexico, you already know that cybersecurity has become a recurring theme in official speeches, national plans, and institutional presentations. However, talking about digital security is one thing—being able to sustain it against a relentless threat environment is another.
The new 2025 Cybersecurity Report from the OAS (Organization of American States) and the IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) points directly to the issue: Mexico is trapped between good intentions, poorly designed initiatives, and virtually nonexistent execution.
At TecnetOne, we believe this report isn’t just a regional diagnosis—it’s an uncomfortable mirror that reflects a reality many choose to ignore.
Today, cybersecurity is a foundational pillar of economic development, institutional stability, and digital sovereignty. It’s not a tech add-on or a matter solely for IT teams. It affects finance, healthcare, energy, education, justice, and national security.
The OAS–IDB report is clear: while Latin America has made progress in rhetoric, the region remains highly vulnerable. And within that context, Mexico stands out for one persistent contradiction—growing public visibility, but extremely limited real capabilities.
The report does acknowledge some initiatives that sound promising on paper, such as:
Read that list alone, and it sounds like solid progress. But the problem lies not in what's announced—it's in what actually works when a real incident occurs.
Learn more: Mexico at a Crossroads: Build a Strong Cybersecurity Strategy
The OAS–IDB context forces us to get real. Mexico remains one of the most attacked countries in the world. In 2024 alone, there were hundreds of billions of intrusion attempts, and 2025 has seen no slowdown. These are not hypothetical threats—they’re constant, automated attacks happening multiple times per second.
Ransomware, phishing, credential theft, mass data leaks, and critical infrastructure attacks are recurring events. Yet, institutional capacity remains reactive, fragmented, and slow.
While public institutions crawl through bureaucracy, criminal groups move fast. They now operate with:
Meanwhile, Mexico responds with isolated awareness campaigns, occasional simulations, and underfunded, understaffed structures.
The report doesn't say it outright—but the message is clear: the state is several steps behind the adversary.
In global indexes like the ITU Global Cybersecurity Index, Mexico ranks in the middle—not at the bottom, but far from the leaders.
This reflects a hard truth: while Mexico may align its regulations and discourse with international standards, it still lacks technical capacity, human resources, threat intelligence sharing, and real coordination.
In a region where cyber threats evolve faster than institutional maturity, this middle ground isn’t neutral—it’s dangerous.
One of the report’s most critical takeaways is Mexico’s chronic underinvestment in cybersecurity. While public–private alliances and SME support are mentioned, the reality is:
The result? Ambitious plans with insufficient resources to execute them.
CERT-MX is a necessary institution—but it’s far from enough. High-impact incidents in recent years have exposed gaps in:
Every presidential term resets priorities, restructures agencies, and rediagnoses the same problem—while attackers don't take political breaks.
Similar titles: Coatlicue: Supercomputer Without Digital Foundations in Mexico
From a critical lens, the biggest value of the OAS–IDB report isn’t listing initiatives—it’s exposing a hard truth: Mexico’s problem isn’t the lack of strategy, it’s the inability to execute it consistently.
There’s a massive gap between:
As long as that gap exists, every document will remain a well-written PDF—nothing more.
Closing that gap requires uncomfortable decisions—not just press releases. Key priorities include:
At TecnetOne, we repeat one fundamental point: cybersecurity is not an expense or bureaucratic hurdle—it’s a basic requirement for Mexico to function in today’s digital world.
Mexico still has a real chance to turn its high exposure into a strategic advantage. Reports like the one from the OAS and IDB offer clarity, benchmarks, and concrete warnings.
But unless those insights translate into sustained action, the gap between narrative and reality will only grow. And in an increasingly hostile cyber landscape, inaction is not neutral—it has mounting economic, social, and political costs.
The question is no longer whether Mexico needs to strengthen cybersecurity. The question is whether it’s ready to go beyond the paper and finally do it.