Digital surfaces
Threat themes
- Fraud
- Data Theft
- Regulatory Non-Compliance
Recommended services
Recommended security products
Verified New Zealand data
Market-level figure, not a per-company loss estimate.
NZ$265m
gross reported bank fraud
MBIE reported that Kiwis lost a gross total of NZ$265 million to fraud over the previous 12 months, based on Payments NZ data from 12 banks.
- Official source:
- MBIE / Consumer Protection Fraud Awareness Week 2025
- Period:
- 12 months before 17 November 2025
- Scope note:
- Official MBIE / Consumer Protection market-level fraud context based on Payments NZ data from 12 banks. This is not a per-company loss estimate.
NZ$26.9m
direct financial loss
NCSC recorded NZ$26.9 million in direct financial loss in 2024/25.
- Official source:
- NCSC Cyber Threat Report 2025 / By the numbers
- Period:
- 2024/25
- Scope note:
- Official reported New Zealand figure. This is market-level context, not a per-company loss estimate and not a BilgeQor outcome.
32 / 21 / 17
public / professional / financial sector reports
Q4 2025 sector reports included Public Administration and Safety 32, Professional / Scientific / Technical / Administrative and Support Services 21, and Financial and Insurance Services 17.
- Official source:
- NCSC Quarter Four Cyber Security Insights 2025 / Data landscape
- Period:
- Q4 2025
- Scope note:
- Official reported New Zealand figure. This is market-level context, not a per-company loss estimate and not a BilgeQor outcome.
NZ$2.9m / 39
high-value loss concentration
Incidents of NZ$10,000 and over made up NZ$2.9 million, or 93% of Q4 2025 reported loss, despite consisting of only 39 incidents.
- Official source:
- NCSC Quarter Four Cyber Security Insights 2025 / Data landscape
- Period:
- Q4 2025
- Scope note:
- Official reported New Zealand figure. This is market-level context, not a per-company loss estimate and not a BilgeQor outcome.
Likely loss areas
Banking, insurance, lending, investment and wealth portals face visible New Zealand risk around bank fraud, phishing, unauthorised access, high-value loss concentration, technology resilience and incident reporting expectations.
Structured support changes the outcome
Visibility
With structured support
Critical surfaces, access paths, payment flows, customer data and vendor dependencies are mapped before they become an incident.
Without structured support
Risk is often discovered after a fraud report, unauthorised access, customer complaint, partner review or operational disruption.
Prioritisation
With structured support
Findings are translated into a plain-English, business-prioritised roadmap so urgent access, payment, backup and logging issues are handled first.
Without structured support
Technical issues stay scattered across teams; fixes compete with product work without a clear impact view.
Evidence
With structured support
A security file, executive summary, remediation notes and follow-up record make security easier to explain to leadership, customers, banks and partners.
Without structured support
The organisation may rely on informal assurance, screenshots or fragmented notes when difficult security questions arrive.
Incident readiness
With structured support
Logging, access ownership, backup expectations and response paths are checked before a fraud, data-loss or service-disruption event escalates.
Without structured support
Response is slower because account ownership, vendor access, logs, backups and communication responsibilities are unclear.
Cost exposure
With structured support
Preventive work becomes budgetable and tied to official New Zealand risk signals instead of vague fear.
Without structured support
Cost often appears during a crisis: lost transactions, recovery work, customer trust loss, regulatory questions and rushed remediation.
BilgeQor Method
For New Zealand, BilgeQor turns official market signals into a practical security file: what is exposed, what could create business impact, and what should be handled first.
01
Market and sector evidence
We start with official New Zealand data from NCSC, MBIE / Consumer Protection, FMA, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and business digital-capability sources where relevant.
02
Exposure mapping
We map payment flows, customer portals, apps, APIs, admin roles, cloud storage, vendor access, public forms and high-value document workflows.
03
Impact framing
We connect each risk to practical loss areas: fraud handling, unauthorised access, downtime, customer trust, partner review, recovery cost and remediation pressure.
04
Security file delivery
We deliver a structured executive summary, prioritised findings, remediation notes and a 14/30/90-day action path where appropriate.
05
Follow-through
One-off reviews can become monthly advisory, retesting, hardening or launch-readiness work when the team needs continued support.
The method does not guarantee prevention, recovery, compliance or regulator approval. It creates clearer security decisions using verified evidence and a maintained delivery record.