Regional conflicts and weakened international institutions are driving the use of offensive cyber operations beyond the “Big Four” (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea). Monitoring these threat actors requires organizations to proactively assess their geopolitical risk to understand where future threats are most likely to emerge.
In 2025, Recorded Future identified at least twenty actors across thirteen “non-Big Four” countries conducting cyber operations, primarily linked to regional conflicts, domestic surveillance, or foreign espionage.
Companies should closely monitor regional geopolitics and maintain strong continuity and resilience plans to protect against cyber espionage or disruptive cyberattacks.
Figure 1: Trends influencing how and why state-sponsored actors beyond China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea carry out cyber operations (Source: Recorded Future)
While the “Big Four” account for the majority of reported cyber threat activity, many other countries use cyber operations to advance their strategic interests. Recorded Future data shows that most observed activity outside of the “Big Four” stems from regional conflicts. Patriotic hacktivist groups, which advance state interests alongside state-sponsored espionage operations, represent the highest volume of reported activity. The degree of coordination between hacktivists and the government remains unclear and likely varies. However, their actions are included in this assessment because of their close alignment with state objectives, which means their activity correlates with interstate conflict risk.
Outside of active conflict, espionage against foreign and domestic targets continues to be a major driver of cyber operations. The most cyber-capable states invest heavily in avoiding detection and attribution, given the significant negative political consequences of exposure.
Tracking threat actors beyond the Big Four requires organizations to understand their geopolitical risk in order to anticipate where threats are most likely to emerge. Operating in certain regions or conflict zones likely increases the risk of cyber espionage or destructive attacks.
Territorial disputes drove nearly two-thirds of observed cyber activity in 2025, according to Recorded Future data. Cyber operations focused on intelligence collection against government, defense, and other critical infrastructure. Hacktivists escalated their activity during conflicts, carrying out nuisance-level attacks amplified through influence operations. Like hacktivists, influence operations align closely with state interests during conflict, but have varying degrees of connection to the state. These activities rarely affect battlefield outcomes but are designed to signal technical sophistication or moral superiority over the adversary.
Between May 7 and 10, 2025, India and Pakistan exchanged a series of missile strikes — the most serious escalation between the two nuclear-armed countries in decades. Throughout the crisis, large volunteer hacktivist communities on both sides conducted disruptive attacks, primarily DDoS and website defacements. Pakistan-linked APT36 conducted espionage operations targeting the Indian government and other politically motivated targets, while threat actors linked to the Indian government, such as SideWinder, pursued Pakistani military targets.
Figure 2: Cyber activity between India and Pakistan spiked alongside the outbreak of armed conflict in May 2025 (Source: Recorded Future)
Influence operations intended to shape perceptions of the conflict also intensified. Influence networks amplified hacktivist claims, often overstating their impact, such as widespread reporting on Pakistani social media that hackers had shut down 70% of India’s electric grid. These operations are intended to portray their own side as more capable and their adversary as vulnerable, underscoring the importance of narrative control in conjunction with military operations.
Similar to cyber engagements observed between India and Pakistan, hacktivist operations bolstered by influence campaigns significantly escalated between Thai hackers and Cambodian hackers following the May 2025 conflict. These were largely carried out by self-proclaimed patriotic hacktivist groups. Operations included DDoS attacks, website defacements, and data leak operations. More targeted hack-and-leak operations were also intended to reveal politically damaging information about the other country’s leadership. Influence operation narratives emphasized that the opposing side was the aggressor in the conflict, likely in order to garner both domestic and international support.
While tensions between Morocco and Algeria have not escalated into armed conflict, cyber hostilities increased significantly in 2025. In the context of these tensions, pro-Algerian hacktivists have allegedly carried out a series of high-profile attacks on Moroccan institutions, striking the National Social Security Fund, the National Agency for Land Conservation, and the Ministry of Justice. The hackers, going by JabaROOT, leaked personal and financial data of millions of Moroccan citizens, potentially exacerbating existing domestic tensions over income disparity. The cyberattacks may have been intended to demonstrate Moroccan vulnerability while maintaining a level of deniability for the Algerian government. Moroccan hacktivists responded with retaliatory data breaches against the Algerian government and education institutions.
While many more countries almost certainly engage in cyber espionage, the following threat actors have been tracked attempting to collect information on targets of political significance:
Political and diplomatic priorities make intelligence targets predictable. Organizations should assess not only their regional exposure but also whether their industry aligns with strategic priorities, as sectors tied to national strategy are the most likely targets for espionage.
Many states use their cyber capabilities to monitor domestic security concerns, which can include law enforcement or national security priorities, monitoring political opposition, or conducting economic espionage on behalf of a key national industry. Domestic surveillance capabilities are often supplemented with commercial off-the-shelf spyware, such as Intellexa’s Predator or Candiru’s DevilsTongue. Similar to understanding political priorities for cross-border espionage, companies should assess whether they possess data that may be of political significance to the government of a country in which they operate. States that lack sufficient oversight or legal privacy protections pose an increased risk of intrusive cyber monitoring and surveillance.
Figure 3: (Left) Graphical representation from the Insikt Group report titled Dark Covenant of the direct and indirect links between Russian Intelligence Services and individuals in the Russian cybercriminal underground; (Right) Infographic of reported cyberattack by Russian state-backed ransomware operators against German military contractors
(Source: Recorded Future)
Figure 4: Starting with these four questions can help you understand threat actors’ motivations for targeting your organization (Source: Recorded Future)
A longstanding territorial dispute between Country A and Country B erupts into a military skirmish at the border, with risks of further escalation. Country A is home to a robust business process outsourcing industry serving some of the world’s largest international corporations.
Groups claiming to be patriotic hacktivists from both countries conduct hack-and-leak operations and website defacements. These are amplified by partisans on social media who often exaggerate the impact of these attacks.
Actors claiming to be hacktivists supporting Country A escalate cyber operations, carrying out persistent cyberattacks against Country B’s electrical grid. As a result, Country B experiences rolling blackouts in the capital city.
The United States and China become increasingly involved in the conflict between Country A and Country B, providing military, logistical, and cyber capabilities to their preferred country. The external support prolongs the conflict and increases the risk of involving neighboring countries.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。