Cyber incidents haven’t ceased to escalate in 2025, and they keep making their presence felt more and more impactfully as we transition into 2026. The quick evolution of novel cyber threat trends leaves data centers increasingly exposed to disruptions extending beyond the traditional IT boundaries.
The Uptime Institute’s annual outage analysis shows that in 2024, cyber-related disruptions occurred at roughly twice the average rate seen over the previous four years. This trend aligns with findings from Honeywell’s 2025 Cyber Threat Report, which identified a sharp increase in ransomware and extortion activity targeting operational technology environments based on large-scale system data.
There are many discussions today around infrastructure complexity and attack sophistication, but it’s a lesser-known reality that human error in cybersecurity remains a central factor behind many of these incidents. Routine configuration changes, access decisions, or decisions taken under stress can create conditions that allow errors to sneak in. Looking at high-availability environments, human error often becomes the point at which otherwise contained threats begin to escalate into bigger problems.
As cyberattacks on data centers continue to grow in number, downtime is carrying heavier and heavier financial and reputational consequences. Addressing human error in cybersecurity means recognizing that human behavior plays a direct role in how a security architecture performs in practice. Let’s take a closer look.
How Attackers Take Advantage of Human Error in Cybersecurity
Cyberattacks often exploit vulnerabilities that stem from both superficial, maybe even preventable mistakes, as well as deeper, systemic issues. Human error in cybersecurity often arises when established procedures are not followed through consistently, which can create gaps that attackers are more than eager to exploit. A delayed firmware update or not completing maintenance tasks can leave infrastructure exposed, even when the risks are already known. And even if organizations have defined policies to reduce these exposures, noncompliance or insufficient follow-through often weakens their effectiveness.
In many environments, operators are aware that parts of their IT and operational technology infrastructure carry known weaknesses, but due to a lack of time or oversight, they fail to address them consistently. Limited training also adds to the problem, especially when employees are expected to recognize and respond to social engineering techniques. Phishing, impersonation, and ransomware attacks are increasingly targeting organizations with complex supply chains and third-party dependencies, and in these situations, human error often enables the initial breach, after which attackers move laterally through systems, using minor mistakes to trigger disruptions.
Why Following Procedures is Crucial
Having policies in place doesn’t always guarantee that the follow-through will be consistent. In everyday operations, teams often have to juggle many things at once: updates, alerts, and routine maintenance, and small steps can be missed unintentionally. Even experienced staff can make these kinds of mistakes, especially when managing large or complex environments over an extended period of time. Gradually, these small oversights can add up and leave systems exposed.
Account management works similarly. Password rules, or the policies for the handling of inactive accounts are usually well-defined; however, they are not always applied homogeneously. Dormant accounts may go unnoticed, and teams can fall behind on updates or escape regular review. Human error in cybersecurity often develops step by step through workloads, familiarity, and everyday stress, and not because of a lack of skill or awareness.
The Danger of Interacting With Social Engineering Without Even Knowing
Social engineering is a method of attack that uses deception and impersonation to influence people into revealing information or providing access. It relies on trust and context to make people perform actions that appear harmless and legitimate at the moment.
The trick of deepfakes is that they mirror everyday communication very accurately. Attackers today have all the tools to impersonate colleagues, service providers, or internal support staff. A phone call from someone claiming to be part of the IT help desk can easily seem routine, especially when framed as a quick fix or standard check. Similar approaches can be seen in emails or messaging platforms, and the pattern is the same: urgency overrides safety.
With the various new tools available, visual deception has become very common. Employees may be directed to login pages that closely resemble internal systems and enter credentials without hesitation. Emerging techniques like AI-assisted voice or video impersonation further blur the line between legitimate requests and malicious activity, making social engineering interactions very difficult to recognize in real time.
Ignoring Security Policies and Best Practices
It’s not enough if security policies exist only as formal documentation, but are not followed consistently on the floor. Sometimes, even if access procedures are defined, employees under the pressure of time can make undocumented exceptions. Access policies, or change management rules, for example, require peer review and approval, but urgent maintenance or capacity pressures often lead to decisions that bypass those steps.
These small deviations create gaps between how systems are supposed to be protected and how they are actually handled. When policies become situational or optional, security controls lose their purpose and reliability, leaving the infrastructure exposed, even though there’s a mature security framework in place.
When Policies Leave Room for Interpretation
Policies that lack precision introduce variability into how security controls are applied across teams and shifts. When procedures don’t explicitly define how credentials should be managed on shared systems, retained login sessions, or administrative access can remain in place beyond their intended scope. Similarly, if requirements for password rotation or periodic access reviews are loosely framed or undocumented, they are more likely to be deferred during routine operations.
These conditions rarely trigger immediate alerts or audit findings. However, over time, they accumulate into systemic weaknesses that expand the attack surface and increase the likelihood of attacks.
Best Practices That Erode in Daily Operations
Security issues often emerge through slow, incremental changes. When operational pressure increases, teams might want to rely on more informal workarounds to keep everything running. Routine best practices like updates, access reviews, and configuration standards can slip down the priority list or become sloppy in their application. Individually, all of these decisions can seem reasonable at the moment; over time, however, they do add up and dilute the established safeguards, which leaves the organization exposed even without a single clearly identifiable incident.
Overlooking Access and Offboarding Control
Ignoring best practices around access management introduces the next line of risks. Employees and third-party contractors often retain privileges beyond their active role if offboarding steps are not followed through. In the lack of clear deprovisioning rules, like disabling accounts, dormant access can linger on unnoticed. These inactive accounts are not monitored closely enough to detect and identify if misuse or compromise happens.
Policy Gaps During Incident Response
The consequences of ignoring procedures become most visible when an actual cybersecurity incident occurs. When teams are forced to act quickly without clear guidance, errors start to surface. Procedures that are outdated, untested, or difficult to locate offer little support during an emergency. There’s no policy that can eliminate risks completely, however, organizations that treat procedures as living, enforceable tools are better positioned to respond effectively when an incident occurs.
A Weak Approach to Security Governance
Weak security governance often allows risks to persist unnoticed, especially when oversight from management is limited or unclear. Without clear ownership and accountability, routine tasks like applying security patches or reviewing alerts can be delayed or overlooked, leaving systems exposed. These seemingly insignificant gaps create an environment over time in which vulnerabilities are known but not actively addressed.
Training plays a very important role in closing this gap, but only when it is treated as part of governance,and not as an isolated activity. Regular, structured training helps employees develop a habit of verification and reinforces the checks and balances defined by organizational policies. To remain effective, training has to evolve in tandem with the threat landscape. Employees need ongoing exposure to emerging attack techniques and practical guidance on how to recognize and respond to them within their daily workflows. Aligned governance and training help organizations position themselves better to reduce risk driven by human factors.
Understanding the Stakes
Human error in cybersecurity is often discussed as a collection of isolated missteps, but in reality, it reflects how people operate within complex systems under constant pressure.
In data center environments, these errors rarely occur as isolated events but are influenced by interconnected processes, tight timelines, and attackers who deliberately exploit trust, familiarity, and routine behavior. Looking at it from this angle, human error doesn’t show only individual mistakes but provides insight into how risks develop across an organization over time.
Recognizing the role of human error in cybersecurity is essential for reducing future incidents, but awareness alone is not enough. Training also plays an important role, but it cannot compensate for unclear processes, weak governance, or a culture that prioritizes speed more than safety.
Data center operators have to continuously adapt their security practices and reinforce expectations through daily operations instead of treating security best practices as rigid formalities. Building a culture where employees understand how their actions influence security outcomes helps organizations respond more effectively to evolving threats and limits the conditions that allow small errors to turn into major, devastating incidents.
# # #
About the Author
Michael Zrihen is the Senior Director of Marketing & Internal Operations Manager at Volico Data Centers.
The post Human Error in Cybersecurity and the Growing Threat to Data Centers appeared first on Data Center POST.
Login
Landon Tessmer, ProEnergy’s vice president of commercial operations, spoke at the Data Center World Power conference in October 2025.Data Center World Power
