The story presents several claims regarding cybersecurity tools and practices, some of which are well-founded in industry reports and expert opinions. For instance, the claim that traditional antivirus software struggles with advanced attacks aligns with current cybersecurity discussions. However, the article lacks direct citations or empirical evidence to support some of its assertions, such as the effectiveness of proactive defense measures over reactive ones. This absence of specific data or studies makes some claims less verifiable. The article's accuracy could be enhanced by referencing studies or expert analyses that validate its points, such as the ineffectiveness of SMS-based two-factor authentication or the limitations of security certifications.

The article predominantly presents a critical view of common cybersecurity practices, highlighting their inefficiencies and potential pitfalls. While this perspective is valuable, it lacks a balanced discussion that acknowledges scenarios where these tools might be effective or necessary. For example, while SMS-based two-factor authentication is criticized, the article does not explore its benefits or contexts where it might be appropriate. Including perspectives from cybersecurity professionals who support these tools could provide a more rounded view and help readers understand the nuances of cybersecurity strategies.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the various points about cybersecurity practices. The language is straightforward and accessible, making the complex topic of cybersecurity understandable to a broad audience. However, some technical terms, like 'endpoint detection and response' or 'zero-day attacks,' might benefit from brief explanations to ensure comprehension for readers less familiar with cybersecurity jargon.

The article cites members of the Forbes Technology Council, which includes technology executives and experts, as its primary sources. While these individuals likely have relevant experience, the article does not provide detailed backgrounds or credentials for these sources, which could help assess their authority on the subject. Furthermore, the lack of diverse sources or independent studies reduces the article's credibility. Incorporating input from cybersecurity researchers or referencing peer-reviewed studies could enhance the reliability of the content.

The article lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the methodology behind the claims made. It does not explain how the opinions of the Forbes Technology Council members were gathered or whether there was a selection process for the quotes included. Additionally, potential conflicts of interest are not addressed, such as whether any members have affiliations with cybersecurity companies that might influence their opinions. Greater transparency regarding these aspects would improve the article's trustworthiness.