Understanding Human Vulnerabilities: A Study on Social Engineering Techniques in Cybersecurity

Abstract

Social engineering exploits human nature to bypass technical security controls and is thus a threatening cyber-attack. This paper explains common techniques such as phishing and pretexting, examines real-world examples, and explains why these attacks are successful. This highlights the need for user training and awareness in combating such attacks.

Introduction

While technological defenses like firewalls and antivirus software are standard in cybersecurity, the most exploited vulnerability is often the human factor. Social engineering attacks use psychological manipulation to trick individuals into revealing sensitive information or compromising security, making them subtle and hard to detect. Common techniques include phishing, vishing (voice phishing), pretexting, baiting, tailgating, and social media traps, all leveraging trust, authority, urgency, curiosity, and greed.

These attacks have caused major breaches globally, targeting organizations across sectors by exploiting user behavior and cognitive biases such as authority obedience, fear, and habit. Case studies—like the Google-Facebook invoice fraud, RSA attack, and recent ransomware incidents—highlight the persistent threat and financial damage caused by social engineering.

Prevention requires a holistic approach combining user awareness training, multi-factor authentication, email filtering, clear incident reporting, strict access controls, regular security assessments, and behavioral anomaly detection. Understanding the psychology behind social engineering and integrating human-centric strategies with technical defenses is crucial for effective cybersecurity.

Conclusion

Social engineering is the most common and dynamic threat in the online world, merely because it targets the weakest point in any system—the human factor. Social engineering differs from the traditional software-based cyber attacks, as it employs psychological manipulation, trust, time pressure, and normal behaviour to deceive people into compromising security. Employing the strategies of phishing, pretexting, baiting, and other fraudulently engineered methods, the attackers manage to bypass even the most robust technological defences by exploiting cognitive biases and emotional responses. This article provided a clear overview of the most common social engineering techniques, complemented by a study of major psychological manipulation techniques and a range of international and domestic case studies. These real-life examples demonstrated how seemingly basic techniques in action, if used astutely, can cause enormous financial and reputational loss to individuals, businesses, and governments alike. Instances like the 2020 Twitter Bitcoin heist or phishing in India are the best examples of the cross-cultural and leveraging nature of these threats. Prevention and counter-measure for social engineering has to be multi-faceted. Technical counter-measures such as multi-factor authentication, secure mail gateways, and anomaly detection systems form the first line of defence. However, awareness and education are the key to resisting social engineering. Continual training, simulated attacks, open reporting practices, and instilling caution in dealing with unsolicited communication are all crucial in minimizing human error. With changing technology, so will the methods used by cybercriminals. Deepfakes, voice AI, and targeted phishing attempts are already the new normal of deception. So, now it becomes the responsibility of individuals and organizations to stay a step ahead and on their toes. Future defences will no longer merely require smarter tools but smarter users. In short, social engineering prevention isn’t technical vs. human—it’s both. An informed public and the assistance of intelligent, vigilant systems is the greatest defence against these assaults on the mind. As cyber threats continue to transform and shape-shift, so must we adapt our awareness, education, and countermeasures against them.

References

[1] S. M. Albladi and G. R. Weir, “User characteristics that influence judgment of social engineering attacks in social networks,” Humancentric Computing and Information Sciences, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1–24, 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13673-018-0128-7 [2] C. Hadnagy, Social Engineering: The Science of Human Hacking, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2018. [3] K. Almohammadi, H. Alqahtani, and A. Alzahrani, ”A comprehensive survey on social engineering techniques in the cyber domain,” Journal of Information Security and Applications, vol. 48, 2019, pp. 102–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2019.102370 [4] E. Okereafor, O. Adeyemi, and C. Udechukwu, “Simulated phishing attacks and human behavior: Evidence from Nigerian enterprises,” Cybersecurity, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2020. doi: 10.1186/s42400020-00052-2 [5] M. Alghamdi and A. van Moorsel, ”Decision-making under social engineering attacks: A cognitive heuristic study,” in Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES), 2021. doi: 10.1145/3407023.3407032 [6] S. Fatima and Y. Wang, “Leveraging artificial intelligence in social engineering attacks and defenses,” Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 2023. doi: 10.3390/jcp3010002 [7] J. Hong, ”The State of Phishing Attacks,” *Communications of the ACM*, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 74–81, Jan. 2012. doi: 10.1145/2063176.2063197 [8] R. Hadnagy, *Social Engineering: The Science of Human Hacking*, 2nd ed., Wiley, 2018. [9] M. Workman, “Wisecrackers: A Theory-Grounded Investigation of Phishing and Pretext Social Engineering Threats to Information Security,” *JASIST*, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 662–674, 2008. doi: 10.1002/asi.20779 [10] T. N. Jagatic, N. A. Johnson, M. Jakobsson, and F. Menczer, ”Social Phishing,” *Communications of the ACM*, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 94–100, 2007. doi: 10.1145/1290958.1290968 [11] K. D. Mitnick and W. L. Simon, *The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security*, Wiley, 2002. [12] ”FBI: Lithuanian scammer tricked Facebook and Google out of over $100 million,” Ars Technica, Mar. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arstechnica.com/ [13] J. Leyden, “RSA finally comes clean over SecurID breach,” The Register, Jun. 2011. [14] K. Weise and N. Perlroth, “Hackers Disrupt MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment,” The New York Times, Sep. 2023. [15] “M&S and Co-op cyberattackers ’tricked IT into resetting passwords’,” The Times, May 2024. [16] Reserve Bank of India, ”Cybersecurity in Banks – Phishing Incidents & Simulation Guidelines,” RBI Circular, Jul. 2021. [17] “AIIMS Delhi servers under ransomware attack: Patient services paralyzed,” The Hindu, Nov. 2022. [18] “CDK Global paid ransom to restore car dealership software,” Bloomberg, Jun. 2024. [19] “Kadokawa confirms ransomware attack impacts Niconico,” NHK World Japan, Jul. 2024. [20] “Hackers target TxDOT, download thousands of crash records,” San Antonio Express-News, May 2025.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Suramyaa Rajalim. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.