You shipped the feature in 20 minutes. The demo looked perfect. Your stakeholders were impressed. Three weeks later, you’re explaining to your users why their data was exposed.
This scenario plays out constantly in the vibe coding era. The tools that let us build faster than ever also let us ship vulnerabilities faster than ever. After analyzing thousands of AI-generated codebases, I’ve identified five distinct traps that catch even experienced developers.
Trap 1: The Hallucinated Dependency Trap
AI models don’t just hallucinate facts. They hallucinate entire packages.
When you ask Cursor or Claude to add a feature, the AI might suggest importing a package that sounds perfect for your needs. The problem? That package might not exist. Or worse, it exists now because an attacker registered it after noticing AI models recommending it.
| |
The attack is elegant: researchers found that popular AI models consistently recommend certain non-existent package names. Attackers monitor these patterns and register the packages with malicious code. Your npm install becomes the attack vector.
How to escape this trap:
- Verify every dependency exists before installing
- Check package age, download counts, and maintainer history
- Use
npm auditor tools like Socket.dev - Question any package you haven’t heard of, even if the AI sounds confident
Trap 2: The “It Works” Trap
The most dangerous code is code that works perfectly in development.
AI models optimize for making code work. They’re trained on millions of examples of working code. But “working” and “secure” aren’t the same thing.
| |
The demo looks great. The feature works. The vulnerability ships to production.
How to escape this trap:
- Never trust code just because it runs
- Review AI output with security-specific questions: “Where’s the input validation? Where’s the parameterization?”
- Run security scanners on every AI-generated function
- Assume the AI optimized for functionality, not security
Trap 3: The Happy Path Trap
AI models love the happy path. Your attackers don’t.
When you prompt an AI with “create a payment form,” it generates code that handles successful payments beautifully. What happens when the payment fails? When the network times out? When someone submits a negative amount?
| |
The happy path trap is particularly insidious because the code looks complete. It handles the success case so elegantly that the missing error paths aren’t obvious until something goes wrong in production.
How to escape this trap:
- Always ask “what happens when this fails?”
- Prompt the AI specifically for error handling
- Test with invalid inputs, not just valid ones
- Add monitoring for edge cases
Trap 4: The Copy-Paste Trap
Every AI model was trained on code containing secrets. Sometimes those patterns leak out.
| |
The copy-paste trap goes beyond just secrets. AI models reproduce insecure patterns they’ve seen thousands of times. That cors({ origin: '*' }) configuration appeared in so many tutorials that the AI treats it as standard practice.
How to escape this trap:
- Use environment variables for all configuration
- Scan commits for secrets before pushing
- Don’t trust AI-generated “example” values
- Set up pre-commit hooks to catch secrets
Trap 5: The Speed Trap
Vibe coding feels productive because it is productive. That’s also what makes it dangerous.
You used to spend a day implementing a feature. Now it takes 30 minutes. Your security review process was designed for the old pace. Something has to give, and usually it’s security.
| |
The math is brutal. Even if AI-generated code has the same vulnerability rate as human code, shipping 10x faster means shipping 10x more vulnerabilities.
How to escape this trap:
- Automate security checks to match your new velocity
- Make security scanning part of your generation workflow
- Set a rule: no AI code ships without automated review
- Budget the time you saved for security validation
The Meta-Trap: Trusting the Vibes
All five traps share a common root: trusting that something feels right.
The hallucinated package sounds right. The working code looks right. The happy path seems complete. The example configuration appears standard. The shipping speed feels appropriate.
Vibe coding is called that because you’re trusting vibes instead of verification. That works for prototypes. It fails catastrophically for production.
Escape the Security Traps
A systematic approach to securing your vibe-coded applications
Verify Dependencies
Security-Focused Review
Test the Unhappy Paths
Automate Secret Detection
Match Security to Velocity
FAQ
Is vibe coding inherently insecure?
Which AI coding tool is most secure?
How do I convince my team to slow down for security?
What percentage of AI-generated code has vulnerabilities?
Conclusion
Key Takeaways
- The hallucinated dependency trap creates supply chain attacks through fake packages AI models recommend
- The “it works” trap ships vulnerable code because functional doesn’t mean secure
- The happy path trap ignores error handling and edge cases attackers will exploit
- The copy-paste trap reproduces secrets and insecure patterns from training data
- The speed trap sacrifices security review time when shipping velocity increases 10x
- All traps stem from trusting vibes over verification
- Automated security scanning is the only way to match security coverage to vibe coding velocity
- 89% of vibe coding vulnerabilities are preventable with proper tooling
Vibe coding isn’t going away. It’s too productive to abandon. But the developers who thrive will be the ones who recognize these traps and build systems to escape them automatically.
The best vibe is shipping fast and staying secure. That takes more than good feelings.