If cybercriminals are becoming increasingly ingenious in bypassing defense systems, their target remains the same: humans. Far from being solely a technological issue, cybersecurity also depends on employees’ ability to adopt the right reflexes in the face of threats. However, our brains, designed for immediate physical dangers, struggle to grasp abstract risks like cyberattacks. This is where neuroscience provides valuable insights to understand and reduce human errors in cybersecurity.
The human factor at the heart of cyberattacks: between errors and cognitive biases
The human factor at the heart of cyberattacks
Despite massive investment in defense technologies (anti-phishing filters, firewalls, advanced detection solutions), human error remains a prime entry point for cybercriminals. Estimates vary depending on the source: between 75% and 95% of cyber incidents originate from human failure.
This phenomenon can be explained by the multitude of risky behaviors, including:
- Clicking on malicious links (phishing), which accounted for 74% of recorded cyberattacks in France in 2023.
- Inadequate password management, particularly the reuse of easily guessable passwords.
- The unintentional sharing of sensitive data, exacerbated by the improper and/or uncontrolled use of mobile devices and cloud applications.
These cognitive biases that make us vulnerable
Human vulnerability to cyber threats largely stems from several cognitive biases. Our decisions are influenced by unconscious mechanisms embedded in the way our brain functions, which distort our ability to assess risk and make rational choices. These biases lead to risky behaviors that, if not corrected, can result in security breaches exploitable by attackers:
- Familiarity bias: We tend to trust what seems familiar to us (banks, public services, providers). This sense of familiarity often leads us to lower our guard and not verify the authenticity of messages, which cybercriminals exploit by impersonating legitimate entities.
- Unrealistic optimism: This bias reflects the belief that “it only happens to others.” Many employees underestimate the risks of cyberattacks, encouraging reckless behaviors such as failing to verify attachments or disregarding security guidelines.
- Availability bias: We assess the likelihood of a risk based on recent experiences. If an employee has never faced an attack, they will perceive the danger as low.
- Complacency bias: Overestimating our abilities leads us to believe that we can easily detect threats. This bias can result in excessive confidence.
- Authority bias: This is the tendency to obey figures perceived as legitimate. Attackers impersonate hierarchical superiors or recognized institutions to prompt hasty actions, such as transferring funds or disclosing sensitive information. This bias is commonly exploited in CEO fraud schemes.
Neuroscience and human error: why does our brain trick us?
The intuitive functioning of the brain in the face of cyber threats
According to the work of psychologist Daniel Kahneman, our brain operates using two modes of thinking:
- System 1: Fast, automatic, and intuitive, it favors immediate responses.
- System 2: Slow and analytical, it engages conscious reflection.
When facing cyber threats, System 1 is primarily activated, as employees often react under pressure or out of habit. However, while this intuitive system is well-suited for responding quickly to physical dangers, it is ill-adapted to complex and abstract digital risks. This dominance of intuitive thinking explains why, despite training, employees may make simple errors, such as clicking on a fraudulent link.
Cybercriminals exploit this natural reflex by designing attacks that trigger urgency and emotions. For example, an email with the subject line “Your account will be suspended within 24 hours” prompts a rapid response, reducing rational thinking and increasing the likelihood of a successful attack.
The impact of emotions, stress, and cognitive overload
Beyond cognitive biases, several factors contribute to human errors, including stress, cognitive overload, and negative emotions:
- Stress weakens analytical abilities, leading to instinctive and therefore risky decisions. An overworked employee is more likely to open a phishing email out of habit, especially if the subject line includes terms like “Urgent”.
- Cognitive overload, caused by the increasing volume of information to process, reduces vigilance against threats.
- Negative emotions (fatigue, frustration) impair judgment, making employees more vulnerable to social engineering manipulations.
Real-world example: cognitive overload in a phishing attack
An employee, in the middle of a busy workday, receives a fraudulent email with the subject: “Login issue detected – Please verify your credentials”.
The email appears legitimate, featuring a familiar corporate logo and a professional tone.
Under pressure, between two meetings and dealing with urgent tasks, the employee fails to carefully analyze the email. The message mentions an urgent problem and includes a link to click on to “prevent service disruption.”
With their brain overwhelmed by a flood of information and sometimes contradictory instructions, they instinctively choose a quick response over careful verification.
The link leads to a perfect replica of their company’s login page. Believing the request is genuine, they enter their credentials. As a result, the attackers gain access to their account, compromising the company’s information system.
This example highlights how cognitive overload, combined with biases like urgency and familiarity, can lead employees to bypass basic security checks and make critical mistakes.
How to use neuroscience to counter human error in cybersecurity?
Establishing an effective cybersecurity culture requires continuous action on multiple fronts:
- Progressive Awareness: Rather than relying solely on one-off training sessions, organizations should regularly expose employees to short and practical messages tailored to their daily work environment.
- Encouraging a “Right to Error” Culture: Creating a trust-based environment where employees can report mistakes without fear of punishment is essential. The goal is to turn incidents into collective learning opportunities.
Awareness Tailored to Cognitive Mechanisms
Neuroscience demonstrates that to capture attention and correct cognitive biases, cybersecurity messages must be adapted to the way the human brain processes information. Traditional training often too dense and theoretical tends to overload memory and disengage employees.
To ensure effectiveness, training content should be:
- Clear and visual – Engages brain areas responsible for quick memorization.
- Concise and repetitive – Reinforces message retention in long-term memory.
- Relevant and concrete – Uses real-life workplace scenarios to illustrate risks effectively.
Learning through experience: simulations & real-world scenarios
The brain learns best through direct experience, making it essential to immerse employees in realistic cybersecurity scenarios. Simulations create a controlled environment where employees can confront cyber threats without real consequences.
- Phishing email simulations – Sending controlled fraudulent emails and analyzing employees’ reactions.
- Role-playing exercises – Simulating crisis situations where teams must respond under pressure (e.g., CEO fraud attempts).
These exercises help identify risky reflexes and reinforce good behaviors. Moreover, by experiencing an error without real consequences, employees retain the lessons learned more effectively.
Repetition and reinforcement to instill good reflexes
Since cognitive biases are deeply embedded in the brain’s functioning, a single awareness session is not enough. It is necessary to:
- Regularly repeat messages through internal prevention campaigns, posters, or email reminders.
- Periodically test employees using simulations to maintain their vigilance.
Overcoming obstacles linked to cultural perceptions
In certain cultural contexts, risk management is often seen as an administrative constraint. This attitude, particularly prevalent in Southern Europe, may explain why some companies are slow to adopt strong preventive measures. This weak risk culture is exploited by attackers, who know that the organizations concerned rarely take precautions before suffering an attack.
To overcome this obstacle, it is crucial to highlight the importance of anticipating threats by demonstrating that cybersecurity is not an unnecessary expense but a vital strategic approach. Sharing concrete examples of threats that were avoided thanks to vigilance can help shift perceptions and encourage teams to adopt a proactive stance.
