Yes. Any internet-facing website, account or connected service can face security risks. The useful goal is not to claim a site is "unhackable"; it is to reduce unnecessary attack surface, keep software current where applicable, secure important accounts and make sure recovery is possible if something goes wrong.
Security marketing often goes in two bad directions.
One side tries to frighten small businesses into expensive packages.
The other says a particular architecture is completely secure.
Neither is very helpful.
Risk is real.
So is proportionality.
"The website" is actually several systems
A business website may involve:
the public pages;
hosting;
domain registrar;
DNS;
email;
CMS;
plugins;
forms;
third-party scripts;
analytics;
booking tools;
developer accounts.
An attacker does not care which part you mentally call "the website".
If one important account is compromised, that can be enough to create a problem.
That is why website security begins with understanding the system rather than installing one security plugin and declaring victory.
Passwords and account access are a major risk
Sometimes the software is not the weak point.
The account is.
Reused password.
Phishing.
No two-factor authentication.
Shared administrator credentials.
Old staff account still active.
Registrar login sitting in somebody's inbox.
If an attacker gets legitimate access, the website may be changed without exploiting a technical vulnerability at all.
Strong unique passwords and two-factor authentication on important accounts are basic but valuable controls.
Worth knowing
Security is not a morality contest between platforms. WordPress can be run securely and static sites can still be compromised through stolen accounts, unsafe third-party scripts or a hijacked domain. The useful distinction is attack surface: every login, plugin, database and running application adds something that has to be managed. Simpler architecture can remove some of those moving parts, but it does not remove the need for sensible account security.
WordPress has more application surface to manage
WordPress is a live application.
Core software.
Themes.
Plugins.
Login.
Database.
Server environment.
Official WordPress security guidance is clear that WordPress itself, plugins and themes should be kept current, and it recommends actively maintained components.
WordPress also regularly releases security fixes when vulnerabilities are discovered.
That is not evidence that WordPress is uniquely bad.
It is evidence that widely used software needs ongoing security maintenance.
Plugins can increase risk
Plugins add capability.
They can also add vulnerabilities or become abandoned.
WordPress's own hardening guidance recommends keeping plugins updated and deleting ones you are not using.
That is sensible.
Every unnecessary component is something else the site has to trust.
If a plugin solves a real problem, use it.
If it exists only because nobody remembers why it was installed, remove it safely.
Static sites usually expose less runtime software
A straightforward static site may have no public CMS login, no WordPress core and no database generating ordinary pages.
That reduces the number of runtime components exposed through the public site.
This is a genuine security advantage of simpler architecture.
It is not immunity.
A deployment account can still be compromised.
A domain account can still be hijacked.
A form function can still contain bad code.
A third-party script can still be malicious or compromised.
"Static" is a smaller attack surface, not a force field.
HTTPS does not mean the website cannot be hacked
This misconception is common.
SSL/TLS encrypts the connection between the visitor and the website.
That is essential.
It does not prove the site's backend is secure.
It does not protect a weak admin password.
It does not fix a vulnerable plugin.
It does not stop every form of attack.
The padlock protects the connection.
Not the entire business.
Third-party scripts deserve attention
Websites often load code from other services.
Analytics.
Chat.
Booking widgets.
Review tools.
Advertising pixels.
Fonts.
Payment components.
Those integrations may be entirely legitimate.
They also expand the dependency chain.
This is another reason I prefer not to add software simply because it exists.
Every integration should solve a real problem.
Backups are part of security
Prevention matters.
Recovery matters too.
If a site is compromised or corrupted, a known clean backup can dramatically improve the situation.
That is why website backups are not only a maintenance topic.
They are part of resilience.
A secure site without a recovery plan is incomplete.
Domain security deserves special attention
If somebody gains control of the registrar or DNS account, they may be able to redirect the domain.
That can affect the website and potentially other services.
Secure the account.
Keep recovery details current.
Know who controls it.
That links directly to who should own your business domain.
Updates need judgement
Keeping software current is important.
Blindly installing major changes on a live dynamic site without a backup can also create problems.
A good maintenance process combines updates with recovery.
Know what is changing.
Have a backup.
Test important functionality.
For a small brochure site, that may be simple.
For a critical commerce platform, it should be more formal.
Can Cloudflare make a site secure?
Cloudflare provides security capabilities across DNS, TLS, network and application layers.
Those tools can be valuable.
But no platform removes every risk.
Cloudflare cannot stop a business owner giving away an account password in a phishing email.
Nor can a CDN fix insecure custom application logic by magic.
Security is layered.
Infrastructure is one layer.
What I'd do
For an ordinary brochure site I would get the boring basics right before buying exotic security products: strong unique passwords, two-factor authentication on important accounts, sensible permissions, supported software where software is running, HTTPS, recoverable backups and business control of the domain. Then increase the controls if the site handles payments, personal data, user accounts or other higher-risk functions. Security should match the consequences of failure.
How much security does a small business need?
Enough for the actual risk.
A five-page dog-walking website does not need the same security programme as an online bank.
But the basics still matter.
Secure accounts.
HTTPS.
Sensible architecture.
Up-to-date software where there is software to update.
Appropriate backups.
Minimal unnecessary integrations.
That is a much more useful baseline than buying an impressive-sounding security package without understanding what it protects.
What if the site has already been hacked?
Do not immediately start deleting random files.
Preserve evidence where appropriate.
Change compromised credentials through a clean device/account path.
Contact the host/provider.
Understand the scope.
Restore from a known clean point if appropriate.
Update or remove the vulnerable component.
If personal data may have been compromised, the business may also have legal/data-protection obligations that go beyond ordinary web-development support.
That becomes a more serious incident.
Gavin’s perspective
Built by Gavin's approach
I like reducing risk through simplicity first.
Do not install technology the site does not need.
Keep important accounts under clear control.
Use HTTPS.
Use strong authentication.
Keep maintainable systems.
Have a recovery path.
If the site genuinely needs a larger application stack, maintain it properly.
Security should follow the architecture rather than become a vague fear-based upsell.
The bottom line
Yes, a business website can be hacked.
So can the accounts around it.
The practical defence is layered:
reduce unnecessary components;
secure credentials;
keep software current;
use HTTPS;
protect domain/DNS access;
and maintain recoverable backups.
No honest developer should promise zero risk.
A good developer should be able to explain how the risk is being reduced.
Concerned about the security of an old website?
Send me the URL and tell me what platform it uses.
I can help you understand whether the site looks proportionate and maintainable before recommending a rebuild or recurring security package.
---