The dumbest cybersecurity myths that are actually getting you hacked

Hackers just love when you believe these cybersecurity myths. The crowd on Reddit is roasting the worst myths that are still getting companies breached.

Every day, cybersecurity professionals scroll through incident reports, patch notes, and threat intel feeds—only to be hit with the same facepalm-inducing myths from users, managers, and even other techies who should know better.

So when the question came up on Reddit—what’s the dumbest cybersecurity myth that causes real-world problems?—infosec pros didn’t hold back.

From people thinking HTTPS makes a website bulletproof, to developers assuming their keyboard wizardry exempts them from basic controls, to execs believing that checking the boxes in legal documents is enough.

We rounded up the best (worst?) myths straight from the trenches. If you’ve ever said one of these things... you might want to stop reading and start fixing your security posture.

1. "We're too small to be a target"

If you’re running a small business, it’s easy to assume hackers have bigger fish to fry. You might think you’re flying under the radar—but in reality, you're sitting right in the sweet spot for cybercriminals.

Why would a hacker break a sweat trying to hack into a corporate giant like Walmart when they can waltz into a poorly secured local shop with minimal effort? Big companies have spent years bulking up their security, building layered defenses, and hiring dedicated teams. Meanwhile, smaller businesses with fewer security resources remain low-hanging fruit for attackers.

The numbers don’t lie. Small businesses are 350% more likely to get hit with social engineering attacks like phishing. According to Accenture, 43% of all cyberattacks are aimed right at small businesses. So no, you’re not too small to be hacked.

2. “I don’t go to weird websites”

While this might sound like it only applies to complete newbies in the digital world, even more experienced users might fall for a false sense of safety. The truth is, malware doesn’t care if you’re visiting sketchy websites or sticking to the mainstream—threats can come from anywhere.

Legitimate-looking emails, malicious ads on trusted websites, or even seemingly harmless downloads can trigger a chain reaction that infects your system.

Cybercriminals have become experts at exploiting the most unexpected entry points, and relying solely on your browsing habits to keep you safe is a recipe for disaster. Cybersecurity isn’t just about avoiding “weird” sites; it’s about an extra layer of defense against the ever-evolving landscape of threats you might not even see coming.

3. "Antivirus is enough"

If you have antivirus in place – it is a nice start. And the bare minimum. Believing it’s enough to protect your entire network is a little naive.

Traditional antivirus tools work well against threats they already recognize, but the cyber landscape isn’t just full of known, neatly labeled viruses. New threats – like zero-day exploits and advanced persistent threats – don’t play by those rules.

Antivirus relies on signature-based detection, which means if the threat doesn’t match something in its database, it slips right through. And modern attackers know this. They use techniques like code obfuscation, polymorphism, and encryption to keep malware under the radar.

Plus, no antivirus in the world is going to stop someone from clicking a convincing phishing email. Social engineering doesn’t need code – it needs curiosity, panic, or just one tired employee.

The bottom line is that antivirus software is a good tool but not a strategy. If it’s the only line of defense you’re relying on, you’re not secure – you’re lucky.

4. "We only need to worry about external attackers"

This one’s a classic. People love to talk about external threats – hackers, cybercriminals, nation-state actors – and ignore the fact that half the time, the damage comes from the inside.

Whether it’s an employee clicking on a phishing link, an ex-employee with leftover access, or an employee with a hidden agenda and too little access control on the system – internal threats are just as dangerous, if not more so.

People focus too much on external threats and forget about insiders. A compromised internal account is just as lethal as an external attack – if not worse.

According to Check Point, 43% of all data breaches are caused by insiders – whether intentional or accidental. And it gets worse. Human error remains one of the biggest security gaps in any organization, with studies showing that anywhere from 74% to 95% of cyber incidents can be traced back to mistakes made by people, not machines.

Whether it’s a misconfigured server, a leaked password, or someone clicking the wrong link, the weakest link in cybersecurity isn’t the tech – it’s us.

5. “There’s no such thing as a virus for Apple or Linux”

The idea that Apple and Linux are “safe” by default is one of the most persistent and lazy cybersecurity myths out there. Sure, Windows has historically been the biggest malware magnet – but that’s mainly because it dominates market share.

If Apple and Linux systems become more widely adopted, they’ll get more attention from attackers, too. Hackers go where the users (and the data) are, and they’re getting smarter by the day.

No system is immune, especially when vulnerabilities come with the design or when developers leave the back door wide open. Our own research into iOS apps proved just how fragile that illusion of safety really is.

Out of 156,000 iOS apps – about 8% of the entire App Store – 71% were found leaking at least one secret. We're talking plaintext credentials exposed right in the app code. On average, each app exposed 5.2 secrets.

So, while macOS and Linux fans might scoff at antivirus updates and ransomware headlines, the truth is simple: if you're connected to the internet, you're a target. No OS gets a free pass.

6. "SSL means my site is secure"

Cybersecurity pros on Reddit keep calling out one myth that just won’t die: the idea that HTTPS equals total security. You’ve seen it – the little padlock icon in your browser, the comforting “https://” in the address bar – and you assume everything’s good to go. But here’s the reality: it’s not.

"HTTPS means my email is encrypted."

"Lock symbol on the web page means it is secure and legit."

"If it starts with https it's secure."

These are real myths cybersecurity professionals keep hearing – and they’re tired of it. As one Redditor bluntly put it: "Yes, this protects the data in transit, but it does nothing to protect the site.”

HTTPS encrypts the connection between your browser and the server. That’s it.

It won’t stop your site from getting hit with SQL injections, cross-site scripting (XSS), or other web-based attacks. SSL is just one layer – it doesn’t harden your backend, it doesn’t secure your database, and it definitely doesn’t mean the site you're on is trustworthy.

So yeah, the lock icon might make you feel better but don’t confuse a secure connection with a secure system.

7. "We’ll fix it in version 2.0"

“We’ll fix it later” often means ‘We’ll leave it wide open for hackers until the.” One Redditor bluntly stated:

“My favorite version of this is: It's a critical security vulnerability on a public-facing website, we will fix it in 2.0.”

Another chimed in, “We don't need to spend time on securing this system. It will never make it to production. Years later...”

One more added the classic: “Let’s just get something up and running quickly, and if we like it, we’ll fix it later.”

That “quick and dirty” prototype often ends up running in production for years, riddled with security gaps you swore you’d circle back to. But by the time someone remembers to “do it right,” the damage is already done.

Breaches love half-baked proof of concepts – because they’re often full of debug accounts, hardcoded secrets, and unpatched vulnerabilities that never got a second look.

The problem with this approach is simple: security doesn’t just magically appear when you decide to build it “properly” later. It needs to come by design and from scratch.

8. "We train employees for phishing and that’s enough"

You can do phishing training. You should do phishing training. But don’t fool yourself into thinking it’ll save you when Carl in accounting opens an invoice attachment labeled “urgent_rebrand_bonus_final_FINAL.pdf.exe.”

A Redditor broke it down like this:

“I run quarterly comprehensive trainings with monthly phishing campaigns and I still get three people out of 200 failing them. Training is good and I advocate for it, but social engineering still works with or without it. Some people just are dumb.”

Another commenter nailed the balance: “Not at all, but I don’t expect anti-phishing training to replace strong email filters. You need both.”

And someone else summed it up perfectly: “Tools are more reliable than people. We shouldn't expect all our people to become expert link-evaluators.”

The point is that you can’t train your way out of human nature. Tools, filters, and least-privilege access should do the heavy lifting – training is just the backup plan.

9. "Patching, antivirus, and a firewall are enough"

As one cyberpro put it, one of the flawed attitudes of the companies is: “Patching, anti-virus, and a firewall are sufficient countermeasures for any vulnerability.” Not even close.

Thinking antivirus, a firewall, and regular patching are “enough” is like thinking a seatbelt is all you need to survive a demolition derby. Sure, it’s better than nothing – but the threats today don’t play fair.

Attackers are rolling in with zero-days, supply chain compromises, and fileless malware. Modern security is layered, proactive, and constantly evolving. If you’re still checking boxes and hoping for the best, you’re already behind.

10. “We’re compliant, so we’re good!”

The phrase “we’re compliant, so we’re good” should set off sirens. Compliance just means you’ve passed a checklist – it doesn’t mean your systems aren’t already compromised.

Sure, regulations like HIPAA and GDPR are important. But they’re a baseline. They don’t cover every scenario, every new threat, or every misconfigured access role that lets attackers waltz in undetected.

Being compliant means you’re legally covered and not paying fines. It doesn’t mean you’re secure.

11. "Regular password changes improve security"

Changing your password regularly is good. But it is not enough. The whole “change your password every 90 days” mindset is fading – and for good reason. Forcing people to rotate passwords usually just leads to bad habits: reused patterns, sticky notes under keyboards, or slightly tweaked versions of the same weak password.

Even NIST has backed off this one. Their updated guidelines do not recommend mandatory periodic password changes – unless there’s evidence of compromise. Why? Because it doesn’t actually improve security, and just annoys users into being predictable.

What actually works? Strong passwords, password managers, and multi-factor authentication. But if you’re not using MFA consistently (and let’s be real, most orgs aren’t), then password rotation can still be an acceptable stopgap.

One Redditor nailed the problem: “People love cherry-picking the parts of NIST guidance they want to do while ignoring the harder parts.”

12. “My host is Amazon or Google, I’m fine”

Another Redditor put another myth on the table: “My application resides in X cloud provider, so our security is top notch/bank grade.” That’s a cool flex – until someone finds your S3 bucket full of customer data with public read permissions.

Just because your app is sitting on AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud doesn’t mean you’re bulletproof. Sure, these providers offer solid infrastructure security. But your configurations? Your Identity and Access Management (IAM) settings? Your app code? That’s on you. And if you screw it up, it doesn’t matter how secure your host is – you’re still leaking data.

Our research at Cybernews has shown that, in many cases, numerous companies are handing in their own data to attackers by simply misconfiguring their cloud storage. So no, hosting your app on a big-name cloud doesn’t mean you’ve magically inherited their security posture.

13. “My developers know what they are doing so no need to control”

This one’s a classic case of ego-fueled security theater: the idea that your developers, sysadmins, or engineers are too smart to fall for the same dumb mistakes as “normal” users.

After all, they write the code, manage the infrastructure, and live knee-deep in shell scripts – surely they don’t need the same restrictions, right? Wrong. This kind of thinking is exactly how high-privilege accounts get phished, misconfigured, or hijacked. Techies are still humans, and humans still click dumb links, reuse passwords, and bypass MFA “just this once.”

Giving your devs a free pass on controls because they “know what they’re doing” is like letting your chef handle raw chicken without washing their hands because they’re professionals. In reality, developers often have more access, more power, and more opportunity to accidentally (or intentionally) mess things up.

The higher the access, the tighter the controls should be – not the other way around. Security should never assume intelligence is a substitute for process.