New data from Radware’s Hacktivism Unveiled Q1 2025 report underscores a sharp escalation in politically motivated cyberattacks, particularly Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) campaigns. The United States emerged as the most frequently targeted nation, experiencing 558 attacks—13.5% of all incidents globally—outpacing Ukraine (400) and Israel (340). The findings confirm a troubling rise in ideologically driven disruption aimed squarely at critical Western infrastructure.
Asia-Pacific: No Longer a Peripheral Target
While headlines often fixate on North America and Europe, cyber threat activity in the Asia-Pacific region is far from peripheral. According to IBM Security X-Force, the Asia-Pacific region was the most targeted by cyberattacks, representing 31% of all reported incidents, with Europe and North America following at 28% and 25%, respectively. Cobalt: Offensive Security Services
In Australia, the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) received over 87,000 reports of cybercrime over the financial year, averaging a report every six minutes. Notably, 11% of the 1,100 cyber incidents impacted critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, water, and health. Defence Ministers
New Zealand has seen similar turbulence. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recorded 7,122 cybersecurity incidents in the year to 30 June 2024, marking its first year as New Zealand’s lead operational cybersecurity agency. Additionally, in Q3 2024, the NCSC reported 1,905 cyber incidents, a 58% increase compared to the previous quarter. ncsc.govt.nzThe Cyber Express+1CERT NZ+1
DDoS as a Political Weapon
Unlike ransomware, which monetises access, DDoS attacks are increasingly deployed as weapons of disruption. Groups like KillNet and Anonymous Sudan are harnessing these attacks to amplify political statements and destabilise targets during geopolitical flashpoints.
Radware notes a shift toward multi-vector DDoS campaigns that span application and network layers. Techniques such as DNS amplification and botnet-based volumetric floods are now standard, increasing the complexity and impact of each campaign.
NETSCOUT’s mid-2024 report revealed over 8.9 million DDoS attacks globally—up 13% year-on-year—with the largest peaking at 995.40 Gbps. These numbers reflect a growing sophistication in attack methodology and an urgent need for improved defence posture.
Building Resilience: A Tactical Approach
Security teams across Australia and New Zealand must treat DDoS protection as a critical component of their cyber strategy—not an afterthought. Here are five tactical priorities:
-
Deploy Intelligent Mitigation Platforms
Choose DDoS mitigation solutions that provide real-time traffic profiling, machine learning-based detection, and automated response across layers. -
Conduct Threat-Informed Risk Assessments
Map your digital assets and simulate attack scenarios to identify exploitable gaps in infrastructure and third-party dependencies. -
Establish Tested Response Playbooks
Ensure your Security Operations Center (SOC) has a rehearsed DDoS incident response plan. Response time is critical during volumetric floods. -
Leverage National Threat Intelligence
Integrate threat feeds from ASD and CERT NZ to enhance situational awareness and keep defense strategies aligned with evolving tactics. -
Strengthen Human Defences
Invest in organization-wide training and phishing simulations. Even the best technical defenses can be undone by a single employee misstep.
Outlook: The Threat Is Growing—So Must Our Response
Cybersecurity is no longer confined to the domain of CISOs. With DDoS campaigns increasing in scale, complexity, and political motivation, the threat surface now spans public and private infrastructure, operational technology environments, and citizen services.
For organisations in the ANZ region, resilience requires more than compliance—it demands continuous visibility, threat-informed strategy, and cross-sector collaboration. As global instability continues to spill into cyberspace, decision-makers must assume that DDoS attacks are a matter of “when,” not “if.”
