Most startups don’t fail because of bad code.
They fail because of assumptions thatfelt reasonable at the time.
I used to believe cybersecurity was something we could deal with later. Not because I didn’t care about security — but because everything else always felt more urgent. Features, users, deadlines. Security was important, just… not today.
That assumption turned out to be more dangerous than any bug we ever shipped.
While building and operating a startup in a fast-growing market, I started noticing something uncomfortable: nothing was “wrong,” yet we were far more exposed than we realized. No alarms. No breaches. Just quiet risk accumulating in the background.
This isn’t a story about hackers or tools.
It’s about the assumptions founders make before anything goes wrong.
“We’re Too Small to Be a Target”
I believed this one for a long time.
It sounds logical: no revenue, no brand, no attention — why would anyone care?
But attackers don’t “care.”
They scan.
If your endpoint responds, it’s visible.
If it’s visible, it’s tested.
Early-stage startups are often easier targets not because they’re careless — but because:
- Defaults are left untouched
- Logging feels unnecessary
- Security reviews feel like overkill
Being small doesn’t make you invisible.
It often makes youpredictable.
“We Use Encryption, So We’re Covered”
This assumption is especially dangerous because it sounds technical.
I’ve seen systems where data was encrypted correctly — and still completely compromised. Not because encryption failed, but because everything around it did.
Hard-coded keys.
Tokens trusted blindly.
Encrypted payloads accepted without context.
Encryption doesn’t protect bad decisions.
It just hides them.
“Compliance Means We’re Safe”
At some point, someone will say:
“Don’t worry — we’re compliant.”
That sentence should make you uncomfortable.
Compliance asks whether you met minimum requirements.
Attackers don’t care about minimums.
I’ve seen compliant systems leak data quietly for months because nobody was watching behavior — only checklists.
Audits look backward.
Attacks don’t.
“Security Is the Developer’s Job”
This one fails silently.
Security decisions are rarely purely technical. They’re shaped by pressure:
- Shipping faster
- Not blocking growth
- “We’ll fix it later”
When leadership treats security as a developer concern, it becomes optional. Developers do what they can — until deadlines win.
Security only works when it’s owned at the decision level, not the code level.
APIs: Where Problems Hide Best
Modern startups are built on APIs.
Most of them trust those APIs far more than they should.
The issues I see most often aren’t advanced exploits. They’re boring problems:
- Authorization that assumes honesty
- IDs trusted because “the client wouldn’t do that”
- No meaningful limits
- No visibility into abuse
APIs rarely fail loudly.
They leak quietly — until someone notices.
The Pattern No One Talks About
Most breaches don’t start with a clever attack.
They start with a sentence like:
“This should be fine for now.”
Security collapses when:
- Trust is assumed instead of verified
- Boundaries are implied instead of enforced
- Risk is postponed instead of understood
Most startups don’t get compromised because they lacked security tools.
They get compromised because they trusted the wrong assumptions.
Final Thought
Cybersecurity isn’t something startups “add later.”
It’s something they either think about early — or pay for at scale.
The earlier you challenge your assumptions, the cheaper security is.
After that, you’re no longer investing in protection.
You’re paying for recovery.