Cybersecurity maturity: Latvia vs EU
First, the overall European picture: incidents actually reported in the EU (ENISA CIRAS). Thereafter, the maturity of Latvian companies against the EU average by dimension.
Overall European Review: Cybersecurity Incidents (ENISA CIRAS, NIS2)
Major incidents reported by EU national authorities within ENISA NIS2 (energy, health, digital infrastructure, etc.). Data are EU-wide and anonymised. Figures from individual countries (including Latvia) are not published. Covers 2012-2026. The current year is partial.
Annually reported incidents (2012-2026)
The increase over the years largely reflects a wider reporting coverage (NIS2 covers more sectors) and lower thresholds, not least more incidents. Comparable over years with caution.
Causes of incidents (2012-2026, %, number)
The main cause is "Vulnerable actions' (30.4% of incidents). Abuse is the second largest and growing.
Source: ENISA CIRAS - NIS2 CIRAS (live data, reporting of NIS2 sectoral incidents, occurring quarterly). Check: raw data (JSON).
Latvia against the EU average: cyber security maturity
The reasoning cannot be expressed by a single figure, so the indicators are grouped by area. Interest shows how many companies do it. Each indicator has the latest available year (2019-2024).
Source: Eurostat - ICT security in companies. The breakdown of fields is the interpretation of cyb3r.help according to ISO/IEC 27001 and NIST CSF 2.0.
Check in source - data sets and selection parameters
- Data sets: isoc_cisce_ra, isoc_cisce_ic
- Companies with 10 and more employees (size_emp=GE10(unit=PC_ENT)
- Latvia v EU-27 average (geo=LV, geo=EU27_2020)
- Values are shown exactly as published by Eurostat without recalculation.
Management
Safety-led deliberately: documented policies and regular risk assessment. Grounds for judgment.
Latvia vs EU average, share of enterprises (%)
In brackets next to the indicator, the latest available year of Eurostat. Grey band = 100% scale.
Check in source - each indicator in the Eurostat table with LV and EU value
- Documented ICT Security Policy (E_SECPOL2, 2024): Latvia 49.4%, EU 35.5% - open to Eurostat
- Assessment of ICT risks (E_SECMRASS, 2024): Latvia 24.8%, EU 34.1% - open to Eurostat
Protection
Basic technical measures: authentication, backup and encryption. They directly reduce the success of the attack.
Latvia vs EU average, share of enterprises (%)
In brackets next to the indicator, the latest available year of Eurostat. Grey band = 100% scale.
Check in source - each indicator in the Eurostat table with LV and EU value
- Strong authentication of passwords (E_SECMSPSW, 2024): Latvia 86.4%, EU 83.7% - open to Eurostat
- At least two factors (E_SECMDUO, 2024): Latvia 29.3%, EU 39.8% - open to Eurostat
- Data backup in a separate location (E_SECMOSBU, 2024): Latvia 60.5%, EU 79.2% - open to Eurostat
- Data encryption (E_SECMDENC, 2024): Latvia 26.7%, EU 39.7% - open to Eurostat
People's awareness
Information and training for workers. Man is the most common starting point of attack (picking, social engineering).
Latvia vs EU average, share of enterprises (%)
In brackets next to the indicator, the latest available year of Eurostat. Grey band = 100% scale.
Check in source - each indicator in the Eurostat table with LV and EU value
- Responsibilities information for workers (E_SECAWANY, 2024): Latvia 47.5%, EU 60.0% - open to Eurostat
- Compulsory security training (E_SECAWCTP, 2024): Latvia 15.7%, EU 24.5% - open to Eurostat
Verification and durability
Whether protection is verified and whether there is financial resilience (insurance) to the consequences of the incident.
Latvia vs EU average, share of enterprises (%)
In brackets next to the indicator, the latest available year of Eurostat. Grey band = 100% scale.
Check in source - each indicator in the Eurostat table with LV and EU value
- ICT security tests (E_SECMTST, 2024): Latvia 22.3%, EU 34.6% open to Eurostat
- Insurance against ICT incidents (E_SECINSLatvia 9.1%, EU 25.0% - open to Eurostat
Experienced incidents (companies)
How many companies actually experienced an ICT security incident. A smaller score is better.
Latvia vs EU average, share of enterprises (%)
In brackets next to the indicator, the latest available year of Eurostat. Grey band = 100% scale.
Less value = better. Fewer businesses experienced incidents.
Check in source - each indicator in the Eurostat table with LV and EU value
- An ICT security incident (E_SEC2IANYLatvia 15.0%, EU 21.5% - open to Eurostat
- Non-availability due to an external attack (E_SEC2IUSVA, 2024): Latvia 8.0%, EU 3.4% - open to Eurostat