Day: September 3, 2024

Eswatini’s King Mswati III’s plans to wed Nomcebo Zuma, the daughter of former South African President Jacob Zuma, as his 16th wife. This will strengthen the ties between the two leaders.

A royal delegation from Eswatini visited Jacob Zuma’s homestead at Nkandla in July in accordance with tradition, marking the start of Mswati’s marriage proposal to Zuma.

This union can be seen as a strategic move, cementing economic and political interests.

President Zuma’s role and capacity to be a major ambassador for Swaziland or the Swazi royal family is a noncontestable issue and has become even far more important in view with the development or the emergence of MK [uMkhonto weSizwe] as a political party with President Zuma as its absolute president.

However,  Zuma’s diminished role in South African politics renders him unable to influence Swazi politics.

But the marriage strengthening bilateral relations between the king of Swaziland and the former president. The former president of South Africa and king are actually business partners and so, we expect that part of their relationship will actually blossom.

Zuma is expected to go on trial on multiple corruption and racketeering charges next April. He has pleaded not guilty.

Meanwhile, Mswati has been criticized for his controversial polygamy and lavish lifestyle.

This high-profile wedding, with its steep dowry of 100 cattle and R2 million (2 million rands(, or USD $113,300 and all the other hidden costs associated with a wedding of this nature, puts a significant strain on Swaziland’s economy. Within royal circles, this union has also been met with internal opposition among the royal wives. … This marriage will cause an uproar.

Whether seen as a strategic union of two powerful families or a personal decision to extend influence and financial gain, the king’s marriage to Nomcebo Zuma will have a lasting impact on the two nations’ ties, for better or worse.

The engagement between King Mswati III of Eswatini and Princess Ntandoyesizwe, carries several potential implications:

1. Strengthening of Political Ties between Eswatini and South Africa:

• Diplomatic Relations: The marriage could symbolize a deepening of ties between Eswatini and South Africa, especially given the familial connection to a former South African leader. This could foster stronger diplomatic relations and closer collaboration between the two nations, which already share cultural and historical ties.
• Political Influence: By aligning with a family that has held significant political power in South Africa, King Mswati might gain a more influential position or a channel to influence political matters in the region.

2. Impact on Domestic Politics in Eswatini:

• Public Perception: Eswatini has experienced political unrest, with calls for democratic reforms and more participation from the public in governance. King Mswati’s engagement to someone from a high-profile political family might be seen as a move to bolster his position, but it could also attract criticism if seen as prioritizing alliances over addressing domestic issues.
• Symbolic Unity: For supporters of the monarchy, this engagement might be seen as a strengthening of traditional and royal values, reinforcing the king’s stature as a leader who can unite influential families.

3. Economic Implications:

• Business and Economic Ventures: The Zuma family has various business interests, and this alliance could pave the way for economic collaborations or investments between businesses in South Africa and Eswatini. It could potentially attract South African investors who are aligned with or influenced by the Zuma family.
• Tourism and Cultural Exchange: The engagement could lead to an increase in tourism and cultural exchanges between the two countries, capitalizing on the royal connection and shared cultural heritage.

4. Regional Power Dynamics:

• Influence in Southern Africa: The marriage may influence regional power dynamics, especially within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The Zuma family’s involvement in South African politics, coupled with King Mswati’s status as Africa’s last absolute monarch, could create a bloc of influence, affecting negotiations and alliances within the SADC region.
• Potential for Mediation Roles: Given their statuses, both families might be seen as potential mediators or power brokers in regional conflicts or disputes, which could impact political negotiations in southern Africa.

5. Public Opinion and Reactions:

• Criticism and Support: The engagement has already sparked diverse reactions on social media, with some viewing it as a union of power and wealth, while others criticize it as part of ongoing political maneuvering. The public’s reaction will play a crucial role in shaping the narrative around this engagement.
• Gender and Social Justice Issues: In both Eswatini and South Africa, issues related to gender equality and social justice are prominent. The engagement could bring these topics to the forefront, especially considering King Mswati’s history of multiple marriages and the ongoing debates about traditional versus modern values.

6. Potential Impact on Jacob Zuma’s Legacy:

• Public Perception: The engagement could affect how Jacob Zuma is perceived, especially if it is seen as extending his influence beyond his political career. It may also be viewed as a way for him to maintain relevance in South African and regional politics.
• Legal and Corruption Cases: Zuma faces ongoing legal battles in South Africa over corruption charges. The royal connection could be seen as a strategic move to gain favor or leverage, although it is unlikely to directly impact legal proceedings.

7. Cultural and Traditional Significance:

• Traditional Alliances: Marriages have historically been used to cement alliances and strengthen ties between powerful families. This engagement could be seen as a continuation of that tradition, reinforcing the cultural practices of both the Zulu and Swazi peoples.
• Royal Protocols and Customs: The engagement may highlight and reinforce traditional customs and protocols within the royal families, setting an example for other traditional leaders in the region.

In conclusion, while the engagement is primarily a personal and familial matter, it has broader political, economic, and social implications for Eswatini, South Africa, and the southern African region. The actual impact will depend on how these relationships and alliances are managed and perceived by the public and political leaders.

For those working in the information security and cybersecurity industries, the technical impacts of a data breach are generally understood. But for those outside of these technical functions, such as executives, operators and business support functions, “explaining” the real impact of a breach can be difficult. Therefore, explaining impacts in terms of quantifiable financial figures and other simple metrics creates a relatively level playing field for most stakeholders, including law enforcement.

IBM’s 2024 Cost of a Data Breach (“CODB”) Report helps to explain the financial impact when law enforcement is involved in the response. Specifically, the CODB report, which studied over 600 organizations, found that when law enforcement assisted the victim during a ransomware attack the cost of a breach lowered by an average of $1 million, excluding the cost of any ransom paid. That is an increase compared to the 2023 CODB Report when the difference was closer to $470,000.

But law enforcement involvement is not ubiquitous. For example, when an organization faced a ransomware attack only 52% of those surveyed involved law enforcement, but the majority of those (63%) also did not end up paying the ransom. Moreover, the CODB Report found law enforcement support helped reduce the time to identify and contain a breach from 297 days to 281.

So why are nearly half of victims not reaching out to law enforcement? Let us look at a few possibilities.

Read the full report

Awareness, embarrassment, secrecy and trust

Outside of cyberspace, a 911 call to local law enforcement is a pretty reasonable first call when falling victim to a crime. But there is no “911” to dial for a cyberattack, and certainly no menu options for ransomware, data exfiltration or destructive attacks. Even experienced incident responders will likely share experiences where opening questions to the victim are, “Have you contacted law enforcement?” or “Have you reported this IC3?” The first answer is often “no” or “not yet,” while the second is “I see what?” Therefore, the awareness issue is still prevalent.

We must also consider emotional responses, such as embarrassment. Think of the employee who may be thinking, “Was I responsible for this by clicking a wrong link?” Embarrassment leads to reluctance, therefore both organizations and law enforcement must message better to their people and partners that reaching out for help is okay. Moreover, add in another psychological factor: additional threats made by the actor demanding victims not contact law enforcement.

There is the secrecy aspect, especially from a business impact perspective. Decision makers may not yet know the business impact of law enforcement involvement. Will the news go public? Will competitors find out? What privacy assurances are available? All of these are reasonable questions, and likely to be important with the regulatory requirements of reporting cyber crimes.

Trust ties all these factors together, ranging from benign “Can I trust law enforcement?” to explicit “We do not trust law enforcement.” These gaps must be bridged.

Building relationships and the future of reporting

Managing a crisis requires competence, but also trust, so exchange business cards before the incident. The issues identified can be proactively addressed by reaching out to law enforcement partners when you do not need them. Learn the capabilities of your local agencies; request meet-and-greets with those in your state and federal regions.

Remember, there is a little “Customer Service 101” here. When the incident hits, what do you want: the general helpline, or somebody you know and have a bond with?

Moreover, the future of cyber crime reporting is becoming more of a public matter, such as SEC reporting rules. Having relationships in place will be beneficial. They can buy time and serve as extra hands.

The case for involving law enforcement from a cost-savings perspective appears pretty transparent. Therefore, it is more of a cultural issue. Make friends, build two-way trust and establish protocols. These can go a long way to reduce the pain and cost of an attack.

The post Cost of a data breach: Cost savings with law enforcement involvement appeared first on Security Intelligence.