An alleged Uzbekistan cyberattack that triggered widespread concern online has exposed around 60,000 unique data records, not the personal data of 15 million citizens, as previously claimed on social media. The clarification came from Uzbekistan’s Digital Technologies Minister Sherzod Shermatov during a press conference on 12 February, addressing mounting speculation surrounding the scale of the breach. From 27 to 30 January, information systems of three government agencies in Uzbekistan were targeted by cyberattacks. The names of the agencies have not been disclosed. However, officials were firm in rejecting viral claims suggesting a large-scale national data leak. “There is no information that the personal data of 15 million citizens of Uzbekistan is being sold online. 60,000 pieces of data — that could be five or six pieces of data per person. We are not talking about 60,000 citizens,” the minister noted, adding that law enforcement agencies were examining the types of data involved. For global readers, the distinction matters. In cybersecurity reporting, raw data units are often confused with the number of affected individuals. A single record can include multiple data points such as a name, date of birth, address, or phone number. According to Shermatov, the 60,000 figure refers to individual data units, not the number of citizens impacted.

Also read: Sanctioned Spyware Vendor Used iOS Zero-Day Exploit Chain Against Egyptian Targets

Uzbekistan Cyberattack: What Actually Happened

The Uzbekistan cyberattack targeted three government information systems over a four-day period in late January. While the breach did result in unauthorized access to certain systems, the ministry emphasized that it was not a mass compromise of citizen accounts. “Of course, there was an attack. The hackers were skilled and sophisticated. They made attempts and succeeded in gaining access to a specific system. In a sense, this is even useful — an incident like this helps to further examine other systems and increase vigilance. Some data, in a certain amount, could indeed have been obtained from some systems,” Shermatov said. His remarks reveal a balanced acknowledgment: the attack was real, the threat actors were capable, and some data exposure did occur. At the same time, the scale appears significantly smaller than initially portrayed online. The ministry also stressed that a “personal data leak” does not mean citizens’ accounts were hacked or that full digital identities were compromised. Instead, limited personal details may have been accessed.

Rising Cyber Threats in Uzbekistan

The Uzbekistan cyberattack comes amid a sharp increase in attempted digital intrusions across the country. According to the ministry, more than 7 million cyber threats were prevented in 2024 through Uzbekistan’s cybersecurity infrastructure. In 2025, that number reportedly exceeded 107 million. Looking ahead, projections suggest that over 200 million cyberattacks could target Uzbekistan in 2026. These figures highlight a broader global trend: as countries accelerate digital transformation, they inevitably expand their attack surface. Emerging digital economies, in particular, often face intense pressure from transnational cybercriminal groups seeking to exploit gaps in infrastructure and rapid system expansion. Uzbekistan’s growing digital ecosystem — from e-government services to financial platforms — is becoming a more attractive target for global threat actors. The recent Uzbekistan cyberattack illustrates that no country, regardless of size, is immune.

Strengthening Security After the Breach

Following the breach, authorities blocked further unauthorized access attempts and reinforced technical safeguards. Additional protections were implemented within the Unified Identification System (OneID), Uzbekistan’s centralized digital identity platform. Under the updated measures, users must now personally authorize access to their data by banks, telecom operators, and other organizations. This shifts more control, and responsibility, directly to citizens. The ministry emphasized that even with partial personal data, fraudsters cannot fully act on behalf of a citizen without direct involvement. However, officials warned that attackers may attempt secondary scams using exposed details. For example, a fraudster could call a citizen, pose as a bank employee, cite known personal details, and claim that someone is applying for a loan in their name — requesting an SMS code to “cancel” the transaction. Such social engineering tactics remain one of the most effective tools for cybercriminals globally.

A Reality Check on Digital Risk

The Uzbekistan cyberattack highlights two critical lessons. First, misinformation can amplify panic faster than technical facts. Second, even limited data exposure carries real risk if exploited creatively. Shermatov’s comment that the incident can help “increase vigilance” reflects a pragmatic view shared by many cybersecurity professionals worldwide: breaches, while undesirable, often drive improvements in resilience. For Uzbekistan, the challenge now is sustaining public trust while hardening systems against a growing global cyber threats. For the rest of the world, the incident serves as a reminder that cybersecurity transparency — clear communication about scope and impact — is just as important as technical defense.