In Short : Over the past decade, India has shifted from chronic power shortages to being largely power-sufficient by massively expanding electricity generation capacity and grid infrastructure. Installed capacity has nearly doubled since 2014, narrowing the gap between demand and supply to almost zero and allowing India to meet peak demand with no shortfall. This transition supports economic growth, universal electrification, and energy security.

In Detail : There is adequate availability of power in the country. Present installed generation capacity of the country is 513.730 GW. Government of India has addressed the critical issue of power deficiency by adding 289.607 GW of fresh generation capacity since April, 2014 transforming the country from power deficit to power sufficient.

The State/ UT-wise details of Power Supply Position, including Maharashtra, for the last three years and the current FY i.e. 2025-26 (upto December, 2025) are attached below. These details indicate that Energy Supplied has been commensurate to the Energy Requirement with only a marginal gap which is generally on account of constraints in the State transmission/distribution network. Hence there is no impact of shortage on the economy and industrial growth.

Further, Electricity being a concurrent subject, the supply and distribution of electricity to the various categories of consumers/areas/districts in a State/UT is within the purview of the respective State Government/Power Utility. The Central Government supplements the efforts of the State Governments by establishing power plants in Central Sector through Central Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs) and allocating power from them to the various States / UTs.

The Government have taken the following steps to meet the increasing demand of electricity in the country:

1. Generation Planning:

• As per National Electricity Plan (NEP), installed generation capacity in 2031-32 is likely to be 874 GW. With a view to ensure generation capacity remains ahead of projected peak demand, all the States, in consultation with CEA, have prepared their “Resource Adequacy Plans (RAPs)”, which are dynamic 10 year rolling plans and includes power generation as well as power procurement planning.
• All the States were advised to initiate process for creating/ contracting generation capacities; from all generation sources, as per their Resource Adequacy Plans.
• In order to augment the power generation capacity, the Government of India has initiated following capacity addition programme:

(A) The projected thermal (coal and lignite) capacity requirement by the year 2034–35 is estimated at approximately 3,07,000 MW as against the 2,11,855 MW installed capacity as on 31.03.2023. To meet this requirement, Ministry of Power has envisaged to set up an additional minimum 97,000 MW coal and lignite based thermal capacity.To meet this requirement, several initiatives have already been undertaken. Thermal capacities of around 17,360 MW have already been commissioned since April 2023 till 20.01.2026. In addition, 39,545 MW of thermal capacity (including 4,845 MW of stressed thermal power projects) is currently under construction. The contracts of 22,920 MW have been awarded and is due for construction. Further, 24,020 MW of coal and lignite-based candidate capacity has been identified which is at various stages of planning in the country.

(B)12,973.5 MW of Hydro Electric Projects are under construction. Further, 4,274 MW of Hydro Electric Projects are under various stage of planning and targeted to be completed by 2031-32.

(C) 6,600 MW of Nuclear Capacity is under construction and targeted to be completed by 2029-30. 7,000 MW of Nuclear Capacity is under various stages of planning and approval.

(D) 1,57,800 MW Renewable Capacity including 67,280 MW of Solar, 6,500 MW of Wind and 60,040 MW Hybrid power is under construction while 48,720 MW of Renewable Capacity including 35,440 MW of Solar and 11,480 MW Hybrid Power is at various stages of planning and targeted to be completed by 2029-30.

(E) In energy storage systems, 11,620 MW/69,720 MWh Pumped Storage Projects (PSPs) are under construction. Further, a total of 6,580 MW/39,480 MWh capacity of Pumped Storage Projects (PSPs) are concurred and yet to be taken up for construction. Currently, 9,653.94 MW/ 26,729.32 MWh Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) capacity are under construction and 19,797.65 MW/ 61,013.40 MWh BESS capacity are under tendering stage

2. Transmission Planning: Inter and Intra-State Transmission System has been planned and implementation of the same is taken up in matching time frame of generation capacity addition. As per the National Electricity Plan, about 1,91,474 ckm of transmission lines and 1,274 GVA of transformation capacity is planned to be added (at 220 kV and above voltage level) during the ten year period from 2022-23 to 2031-32.

3. Promotion of Renewable Energy Generation:

• Inter State Transmission System (ISTS) charges have been waived for inter-state sale of solar and wind power for projects to be commissioned by 30th June 2025, for Green Hydrogen Projects till December 2030 and for offshore wind projects till December 2032.
• Standard Bidding Guidelines for tariff based competitive bidding process for procurement of Power from Grid Connected Solar, Wind, Wind-Solar Hybrid and Firm &Dispatchable RE (FDRE) projects have been issued.
• Renewable Energy Implementing Agencies (REIAs) are regularly inviting bids for procurement of RE power.
• Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been permitted up to 100 percent under the automatic route.
• To augment transmission infrastructure needed for steep RE trajectory, transmission plan has been prepared till 2032.
• Laying of new intrastate transmission lines and creating new sub-station capacity has been funded under the Green Energy Corridor Scheme for evacuation of renewable power.
• Scheme for setting up of Solar Parks and Ultra Mega Solar Power projects is being implemented to provide land and transmission to RE developers for installation of RE projects at large scale
• Schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Surakshaevam Utthaan Mahabhiyan (PM-KUSUM), PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana, National Programme on High Efficiency Solar Dharti Aabha Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan (DA JGUA), National Green Hydrogen Mission, Viability Gap Funding (VGF) Scheme for Offshore Wind Energy Projects have been launched
• To encourage RE consumption, Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) followed by Renewable Consumption Obligation (RCO) trajectory has been notified till 2029-30. The RCO which is applicable to all designated consumers under the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 will attract penalties on non-compliance.
• “Strategy for Establishment of Offshore Wind Energy Projects” has been issued.
• Green Term Ahead Market (GTAM) has been launched to facilitate sale of Renewable Energy Power through exchanges.
• Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme has been launched to achieve the objective of localisation of supply chain for solar PV Modules.

The State-wise detail of Power Supply Position in the country in terms of Energy for the year 2022-23 and 2023-24.

State/ System / Region	April, 2022 –  March, 2023				April, 2023 –  March, 2024
	Energy Requirement	Energy Supplied	Energy not Supplied		Energy Requirement	Energy Supplied	Energy not Supplied
	( MU )	( MU )	(MU)	( % )	(MU)	( MU )	(MU)	( % )
Chandigarh	1,788	1,788	0	0	1,789	1,789	0	0
Delhi	35,143	35,133	10	0	35,501	35,496	5	0
Haryana	61,451	60,945	506	0.8	63,983	63,636	348	0.5
Himachal Pradesh	12,649	12,542	107	0.8	12,805	12,767	38	0.3
Jammu & Kashmir	19,639	19,322	317	1.6	20,040	19,763	277	1.4
Punjab	69,522	69,220	302	0.4	69,533	69,528	5	0
Rajasthan	1,01,801	1,00,057	1,745	1.7	1,07,422	1,06,806	616	0.6
Uttar Pradesh	1,44,251	1,43,050	1,201	0.8	1,48,791	1,48,287	504	0.3
Uttarakhand	15,647	15,386	261	1.7	15,644	15,532	112	0.7
Northern Region	4,63,088	4,58,640	4,449	1	4,76,852	4,74,946	1,906	0.4
Chhattisgarh	37,446	37,374	72	0.2	39,930	39,872	58	0.1
Gujarat	1,39,043	1,38,999	44	0	1,45,768	1,45,740	28	0
Madhya Pradesh	92,683	92,325	358	0.4	99,301	99,150	151	0.2
Maharashtra	1,87,309	1,87,197	111	0.1	2,07,108	2,06,931	176	0.1
Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu	10,018	10,018	0	0	10,164	10,164	0	0
Goa	4,669	4,669	0	0	5,111	5,111	0	0
Western Region	4,77,393	4,76,808	586	0.1	5,17,714	5,17,301	413	0.1
Andhra Pradesh	72,302	71,893	410	0.6	80,209	80,151	57	0.1
Telangana	77,832	77,799	34	0	84,623	84,613	9	0
Karnataka	75,688	75,663	26	0	94,088	93,934	154	0.2
Kerala	27,747	27,726	21	0.1	30,943	30,938	5	0
Tamil Nadu	1,14,798	1,14,722	77	0.1	1,26,163	1,26,151	12	0
Puducherry	3,051	3,050	1	0	3,456	3,455	1	0
Lakshadweep	64	64	0	0	64	64	0	0
Southern Region	3,71,467	3,70,900	567	0.2	4,19,531	4,19,293	238	0.1
Bihar	39,545	38,762	783	2	41,514	40,918	596	1.4
DVC	26,339	26,330	9	0	26,560	26,552	8	0
Jharkhand	13,278	12,288	990	7.5	14,408	13,858	550	3.8
Odisha	42,631	42,584	47	0.1	41,358	41,333	25	0.1
West Bengal	60,348	60,274	74	0.1	67,576	67,490	86	0.1
Sikkim	587	587	0	0	544	543	0	0
Andaman- Nicobar	348	348	0	0.12914	386	374	12	3.18562
Eastern Region	1,82,791	1,80,888	1,903	1	1,92,013	1,90,747	1,266	0.7
Arunachal Pradesh	915	892	24	2.6	1,014	1,014	0	0
Assam	11,465	11,465	0	0	12,445	12,341	104	0.8
Manipur	1,014	1,014	0	0	1,023	1,008	15	1.5
Meghalaya	2,237	2,237	0	0	2,236	2,066	170	7.6
Mizoram	645	645	0	0	684	684	0	0
Nagaland	926	873	54	5.8	921	921	0	0
Tripura	1,547	1,547	0	0	1,691	1,691	0	0
North-Eastern Region	18,758	18,680	78	0.4	20,022	19,733	289	1.4
All India	15,13,497	15,05,914	7,583	0.5	16,26,132	16,22,020	4,112	0.3

The State-wise detail of actual Power Supply Position in the country in terms of Energy for the years 2024-25 and the current year 2025-26 (uptoDecember, 2025).

State/	April, 2024 –  March, 2025				April, 2025 –  December, 2025
System /	Energy Requirement	Energy Supplied	Energy not Supplied		Energy Requirement	Energy Supplied	Energy not Supplied
Region	( MU )	( MU )	( MU )	( % )	( MU )	( MU )	( MU )	( % )
Chandigarh	1,952	1,952	0	0	1,509	1,509	1	0.0
Delhi	38,255	38,243	12	0	31,011	31,004	7	0.0
Haryana	70,149	70,120	30	0	55,932	55,867	65	0.1
Himachal Pradesh	13,566	13,526	40	0.3	10,295	10,259	36	0.3
Jammu & Kashmir	20,374	20,283	90	0.4	14,874	14,862	12	0.1
Punjab	77,423	77,423	0	0	60,852	60,811	41	0.1
Rajasthan	1,13,833	1,13,529	304	0.3	82,782	82,782	0	0.0
Uttar Pradesh	1,65,090	1,64,786	304	0.2	1,29,271	1,29,245	26	0.0
Uttarakhand	16,770	16,727	43	0.3	12,634	12,585	49	0.4
Northern Region	5,18,869	5,17,917	952	0.2	4,00,371	4,00,135	236	0.1
Chhattisgarh	43,208	43,180	28	0.1	31,484	31,475	8	0.0
Gujarat	1,51,878	1,51,875	3	0	1,18,066	1,18,066	0	0.0
Madhya Pradesh	1,04,445	1,04,312	133	0.1	75,024	75,017	7	0.0
Maharashtra	2,01,816	2,01,757	59	0	1,49,339	1,49,330	9	0.0
Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu	10,852	10,852	0	0	8,437	8,437	0	0.0
Goa	5,411	5,411	0	0	4,085	4,085	0	0.0
Western Region	5,28,924	5,28,701	223	0	3,96,482	3,96,458	24	0.0
Andhra Pradesh	79,028	79,025	3	0	59,580	59,574	6	0.0
Telangana	88,262	88,258	4	0	61,137	61,130	7	0.0
Karnataka	92,450	92,446	4	0	67,697	67,687	9	0.0
Kerala	31,624	31,616	8	0	22,947	22,945	2	0.0
Tamil Nadu	1,30,413	1,30,408	5	0	99,673	99,664	10	0.0
Puducherry	3,549	3,549	0	0	2,693	2,690	3	0.1
Lakshadweep	68	68	0	0	54	54	0	0.0
Southern Region	4,25,373	4,25,349	24	0	3,13,762	3,13,724	38	0.0
Bihar	44,393	44,217	176	0.4	37,299	37,283	15	0.0
DVC	25,891	25,888	3	0	18,590	18,587	3	0.0
Jharkhand	15,203	15,126	77	0.5	11,717	11,711	6	0.1
Odisha	42,882	42,858	24	0.1	34,037	34,032	5	0.0
West Bengal	71,180	71,085	95	0.1	56,921	56,888	32	0.1
Sikkim	574	574	0	0	378	378	0	0.0
Andaman- Nicobar	425	413	12	2.9	316	299	17	5.5
Eastern Region	2,00,180	1,99,806	374	0.2	1,58,986	1,58,924	62	0.0
Arunachal Pradesh	1,050	1,050	0	0	909	909	0	0.0
Assam	12,843	12,837	6	0	10,973	10,973	0	0.0
Manipur	1,079	1,068	10	0.9	863	861	3	0.3
Meghalaya	2,046	2,046	0	0	1,542	1,542	0	0.0
Mizoram	709	709	0	0	559	559	0	0.0
Nagaland	938	938	0	0	772	772	0	0.0
Tripura	1,939	1,939	0	0	1,523	1,523	0	0.0
North-Eastern Region	20,613	20,596	16	0.1	17,227	17,224	3	0.0
All India	16,93,959	16,92,369	1,590	0.1	12,86,829	12,86,465	363	0.0

This Information was given by The Minister of State in the Ministry of Power, Shri Shripad Naik, in a written reply in the Lok Sabha today.

AI coding agents enable developers to work faster by streamlining tasks and driving automated, test-driven development. However, they also introduce a...

AI coding agents enable developers to work faster by streamlining tasks and driving automated, test-driven development. However, they also introduce a significant, often overlooked, attack surface by running tools from the command line with the same permissions and entitlements as the user, making them computer use agents, with all the risks those entail. The primary threat to these tools is…

Source

Advances in AI architectures have unlocked multimodal functionality, enabling transformer models to process multiple forms of data in the same context. For...

Advances in AI architectures have unlocked multimodal functionality, enabling transformer models to process multiple forms of data in the same context. For instance, vision language models (VLMs) can generate output from combined image and text input, enabling developers to build systems that interpret graphs, process camera feeds, or operate with traditionally human interfaces like desktop…

Source

AI‑native organizations increasingly face scaling challenges as agentic AI workflows drive context windows to millions of tokens and models scale toward...

AI‑native organizations increasingly face scaling challenges as agentic AI workflows drive context windows to millions of tokens and models scale toward trillions of parameters. These systems currently rely on agentic long‑term memory for context that persists across turns, tools, and sessions so agents can build on prior reasoning instead of starting from scratch on every request.

Source

AI-driven applications are evolving from passive tools to agentic systems that generate code, make decisions, and take autonomous actions. This shift introduces...

AI-driven applications are evolving from passive tools to agentic systems that generate code, make decisions, and take autonomous actions. This shift introduces a critical security challenge. When an AI system produces code, there must be strict controls on how and where that code is executed. Without these boundaries, an attacker can craft inputs that trick the AI into generating malicious code…

Source

The European Commission has released its proposal to revise its Cybersecurity Act (CSA), which includes provisions to exclude “high-risk” companies and components from European supply chains.

Analysis: Expected changes to the EU’s cybersecurity laws that could have significant implications for the continent’s solar industry have been delayed, reportedly due to disagreement between officials and member states over how far they should go.

The main goal in the industrial world is to prevent major disruptions in controlled processes, but protecting the information system and the data it contains is also an important concern. As a result, successful attacks can have catastrophic implications. Regardless... Read more

The post Cybersecurity of the Eight Most Used Industrial Protocols appeared first on EEP - Electrical Engineering Portal.

Data centers are the backbone of modern digital infrastructure. They power cloud services, financial systems, healthcare platforms, and nearly every technology-driven business. As demand for data storage and processing grows, so do the operational, financial, and risk-related challenges data centers face. For managers, understanding these issues and knowing how to address them proactively is critical to maintaining uptime, security, and long-term viability. This is what you need to know to ensure you can meet up with demand.

Rising Energy Costs and Efficiency Demands

One of the most persistent challenges for data centers is energy consumption. Powering servers, cooling systems, and redundancy infrastructure requires enormous amounts of electricity, and energy costs continue to rise globally. Beyond cost, there is increasing pressure from regulators and customers to reduce environmental impact.

Managers can address this by investing in energy-efficient hardware, optimizing airflow and cooling layouts, and adopting real-time monitoring tools to identify waste. Long-term strategies may include transitioning to renewable energy sources or partnering with utility providers for more favorable pricing structures.

Cooling and Thermal Management Challenges

Heat is an unavoidable byproduct of high-density computing. Inefficient cooling not only increases costs but also raises the risk of equipment failure and downtime. As server densities increase, traditional cooling methods often struggle to keep up.

Modern solutions include hot-aisle/cold-aisle containment, liquid cooling, and AI-driven thermal monitoring systems. For managers, the key is treating cooling as a dynamic system rather than a fixed infrastructure. However, this needs to be one that evolves alongside hardware demands.

Financial Risk and Insurance Considerations

Data centers face significant financial exposure from equipment damage, downtime, liability claims, and unforeseen events. Even with strong operational controls, risk cannot be eliminated entirely.

This is where insurance becomes a critical part of risk management. Evaluating coverage that aligns with the unique needs of data center operations can help protect against losses that would otherwise threaten business continuity. BOP insurance by Next Insurance can help managers think more holistically about protecting assets, operations, and revenue streams as part of an overall risk strategy.

Downtime and Business Continuity Risks

Even brief outages can result in significant financial losses, reputational damage, and contractual penalties. This downtime may be caused by:

• Power failures
• Human error
• Equipment malfunction
• External events

To mitigate this risk, managers should prioritize redundancy at every critical point, including power supplies, network connections, and backup systems. Regular testing of disaster recovery plans is just as important as having them documented, too. A plan that hasn’t been tested is often unreliable in real-world conditions. You put your business and those whom you cater to at risk.

Cybersecurity and Physical Security Threats

Data centers face a dual security challenge: digital threats and physical risks. Cyberattacks continue to grow in sophistication, while physical threats such as unauthorized access, theft, or vandalism remain real concerns.

Addressing this requires layered security. On the digital side, this includes continuous patching, network segmentation, and monitoring for unusual activity. Physically, access controls, surveillance systems, and strict visitor protocols are essential. Managers should also ensure that staff training keeps pace with evolving threats, as human error remains a major vulnerability.

Compliance and Regulatory Pressure

Data centers often operate under complex regulatory requirements related to data privacy, industry standards, and regional laws. Compliance failures can result in fines, legal exposure, and loss of customer trust.

Managers can stay ahead by maintaining clear documentation, conducting regular audits, and working closely with legal and compliance teams. Building compliance into operational processes, rather than treating it as an afterthought, reduces risk and simplifies reporting.

Turning Challenges Into Strategic Advantage

While data centers face a wide range of operational and strategic challenges, these issues also present opportunities for improvement and differentiation. Managers who address all of the above proactively are better positioned to deliver reliability and value in a competitive market. Don’t let yours be the one that falls victim to the issues and instead take action.

# # #

About the Author:

James Daniels is a freelance writer, business enthusiast, a bit of a tech buff, and an overall geek. He is also an avid reader, who can spend hours reading and knowing about the latest gadgets and tech, whilst offering views and opinions on these topics.

The post Issues Data Centers Face and How to Overcome Them: A Guide for Managers appeared first on Data Center POST.

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.

Cyber incidents are increasing rapidly. In 2024, the number of outages caused by cyber incidents was twice the average of the previous four years, according to Uptime Institute’s annual report on data center outages (see Annual outage analysis 2025). More operational technology (OT) vendors are experiencing significant increases in cyberattacks on their systems. Data center equipment vendor Honeywell analyzed hundreds of billions of system logs and 4,600 events in the first quarter of 2025, identifying 1,472 new ransomware extortion incidents — a 46% increase on the fourth quarter of 2024 (see Honeywell’s 2025 Cyber Threat Report). Beyond the initial impact, cyberattacks can have lasting consequences for a company’s reputation and balance sheet.

Cyberattacks increasingly exploit human error

Cyberattacks on data centers often exploit vulnerabilities — some stemming from simple and preventable errors, while others are overlooked systemic issues. Human error, such as failing to follow procedures, can create vulnerabilities, which the attacker exploits. For example, staff might forget regular system patches or delay firmware updates, leaving systems exposed. Companies, in turn, implement policies and procedures to ensure employees perform preventative actions on a consistent basis.

In many cases, data center operators may well be aware that elements of their IT and OT infrastructure have certain vulnerabilities. This may be due to policy noncompliance or the policy itself lacking appropriate protocols to defend against hackers. Often, employees lack training on how to recognize and respond to common social engineering techniques used by hackers. Tactics such as email phishing, impersonation and ransomware are increasingly targeting organizations with complex supply chain and third-party dependencies.

Cybersecurity incidents involving human error often follow similar patterns. Attacks may begin with some form of social engineering to obtain login credentials. Once inside, the attack moves laterally through a system, exploiting small errors to cause systemic damage (see Table 1).

Table 1 Cyberattackers exploit human factors to induce human error

Failure to follow correct procedures

Although many companies have policies and procedures in place, employees can become complacent and fail to follow them. At times, they may unintentionally skip a step or carry it out incorrectly. For instance, workers might forget to install a software update or accidentally misconfigure a port or firewall — despite having technical training. Others may feel overwhelmed by the volume of updates and leave systems vulnerable as a result. In some cases, important details are simply overlooked, such as leaving a firewall port open or setting their cloud storage to public access.

Procedures concerning password strength, password changes and inactive accounts are common vulnerabilities that hackers exploit. Inactive accounts that are not properly deactivated may miss out on critical security updates, as these are monitored less closely than active accounts, making it easier for security breaches to go unnoticed.

Unknowingly engaging with social engineering

Social engineering is a tactic used to deceive individuals into revealing sensitive information or downloading malicious software. It typically involves the attacker impersonating someone from the target’s company or organization to build trust with them. The primary goal is to steal login credentials or gain unauthorized access to the system.

Attackers may call employees while posing as someone from the IT help desk, requesting login details. Another common tactic involves the attacker pretending to be a help desk technician and, under the guise of “routine testing,” pressuring an employee to disclose their login credentials.

Like phishing, spoofing is a tactic used to gain an employee’s trust by simulating familiar conditions, but it often relies on misleading visual cues. For example, social engineers may email a link to a fake version of the company’s login screen, prompting the unsuspecting employee to enter their login information as usual. In some rare cases, attackers might even use AI to impersonate an employee’s supervisor during video call.

Deviation from policies or best practices

Adhering to policies and best practices is critical to determining whether cybersecurity succeeds or fails. Procedures need to be written clearly and without ambiguity. For example, if a procedure does not explicitly require an employee to clear saved login data from their devices, hackers or rogue employees may be able to gain access to the device using default administrator credentials. Similarly, if regular password changes are not mandated, it may be easier for attackers to compromise system access credentials.

Policies must also account for the possibility of a disgruntled employee or third-party worker stealing or corrupting sensitive information for personal gain. To reduce this risk, companies can implement clear deprovisioning rules in their offboarding process, such as ensuring passwords are changed immediately upon an employee’s departure. While there is always a chance that a procedural step may be accidentally overlooked, comprehensive procedures increase the likelihood that each task is completed correctly.

Procedures are especially critical when employees have to work quickly to contain a cybersecurity incident. They should be clearly written, thoroughly tested for reliability, and easily accessible to serve as a reference during a variety of emergencies.

Poor security governance and oversight

A lack of governance or oversight from management can lead to overlooked risks and vulnerabilities, such as missed security patches or failure to monitor systems for threats or alerts. Training helps employees to approach situations with healthy skepticism, encouraging them to perform checks and balances consistent with the company’s policies.

Training should evolve to ensure that workers are informed about the latest threats and vulnerabilities, as well as how to recognize them.

Notable incidents exploiting human error

The types of human error described above are further complicated due to the psychology of how individuals behave in intense situations. For example, mistakes may occur due to heightened stress, fatigue or coercion, all of which can lead to errors of judgment when a quick decision or action is required.

Table 2 identifies how human error may have played a part in eight major public cybersecurity breaches between 2023 and 2025. This includes three of the 10 most significant data center outages — United Healthcare, CDK Global and Ascension Healthcare — highlighted in Uptime Institute’s outages report (see Annual outage analysis 2025). We note the following trends:

• At least five of the incidents involved social engineering. These attacks often exploited legitimate credentials or third-party vulnerabilities to gain access and execute malicious actions.
• All incidents likely involved failures by employees to follow policies, procedures or properly manage common vulnerabilities.
• Seven incidents exposed gaps in skills, training or experience to mitigate threats to the organization.
• In half of the incidents, policies may have been poorly enforced or bypassed for unknown reasons.

Table 2 Impact of major cyber incidents involving human error

Typically, organizations are reluctant to disclose detailed information about cyberattacks. However, regulators and government cybersecurity agencies are increasingly expecting more transparency — particularly when the attacks affect citizens and consumers — since attackers often leak information on public forums and the dark web.

The following findings are particularly concerning for data center operators and warrant serious attention:

• The financial cost of cyber incidents is significant. Among the eight identified cyberattacks, the estimated total losses exceed $8 billion.
• Full financial and reputational impact can take longer to play out. For example, UK retailer Marks & Spencer is facing lawsuits from customer groups over identity theft and fraud following a cyberattack. Similar actions may be taken by regulators or government agencies, particularly if breaches expose compliance failures with cybersecurity regulations, such as those in the Network and Information Security Directive 2 and the Digital Operational Resilience Act.

---

The Uptime Intelligence View

Human error is often viewed as a series of unrelated mistakes; however, the errors identified in this report stem from complex, interconnected systems and increasingly sophisticated attackers who exploit human psychology to manipulate events.

Understanding the role of human error in cybersecurity incidents is crucial to help employees recognize and prevent potential oversights. Training alone is unlikely to solve the problem. Data center operators should continuously adapt cyber practices and foster a culture that redefines how staff perceive and respond to the risk of cyber threats. This cultural shift is likely critical to staying ahead of evolving threat tactics.

John O’Brien, Senior Research Analyst, jobrien@uptimeinstitute.com
Rose Weinschenk, Analyst, rweinschenk@uptimeinstitute.com

The post Cybersecurity and the cost of human error appeared first on Uptime Institute Blog.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is investing US$20 million in Preply, a leading Ukrainian education technology company and a global platform for online language learning. This investment […]

The post EBRD Invests $20M In Preply As Part Of Wider Push To Support Ukraine’s Tech And Energy Security appeared first on SolarQuarter.

India Energy Week (IEW) 2026, scheduled to be held from January 27–30, 2026, at ONGC ATI, Goa, will bring together global energy ministers, industry leaders, policymakers, financial institutions, academia and […]

The post IEW 2026 in Goa to Drive Global Energy Partnerships as India Pushes Security, Decarbonisation and Investment-Led Growth appeared first on SolarQuarter.

Energy-Storage.news Premium speaks with Phil Tonkin, field chief technology officer at Dragos, and Dr. Peter Fox-Penner, a Brattle principal, on BESS cybersecurity.