Cybersecurity Threats vs. Risks: What’s the Difference and Why It Matters

The concepts of “threats” and “risks” are fundamental to cybersecurity and are defined by both NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission) in slightly different but complementary ways.

Language and terms are fundamental to clear communication, particularly in complex fields like cybersecurity and risk management. Using consistent and accurate terminology ensures that all stakeholders, from technical teams to executive leadership-have a shared understanding of critical issues. Miscommunication due to inconsistent use of terms can lead to misunderstandings, misaligned strategies, and, ultimately, inadequate risk management. Leadership is responsible for ensuring that the organization uses terms correctly, as this fosters clarity, promotes effective decision-making, and aligns the entire organization toward common goals in protecting its assets and managing risks effectively. By standardizing language, leaders help prevent costly mistakes and ensure that everyone is on the same page when addressing threats and risks.

You can connect with me on LinkedIn and join my professional network.

NIST Definitions

Threat:

• Definition: According to NIST, a threat is any circumstance or event with the potential to adversely impact organizational operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), organizational assets, individuals, other organizations, or the Nation through an information system via unauthorized access, destruction, disclosure, modification of information, and/or denial of service.
• Key Point: A threat is something that has the potential to cause harm. It could be a natural event like a hurricane, a human activity like a cyberattack, or even a system failure. The key element is that a threat is a potential cause of an adverse event.

Risk:

• Definition: NIST defines risk as the potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, event, or occurrence, as determined by its likelihood and the associated consequences.
• Key Point: Risk is essentially the combination of the likelihood that a threat will exploit a vulnerability and the potential impact of that exploitation. Risk is often expressed as a combination of the likelihood of an event and the impact it would have.

ISO/IEC Definitions

Threat:

• Definition: According to ISO/IEC 27000 series, particularly ISO/IEC 27005 (Information security risk management), a threat is a potential cause of an unwanted incident, which may result in harm to a system or organization.
• Key Point: Similar to NIST, ISO/IEC defines a threat as a possible source of harm. This includes anything that can exploit a vulnerability, whether it be intentional (like a hacker) or unintentional (like a natural disaster).

Risk:

• Definition: ISO/IEC 27005 defines risk as the potential that a given threat will exploit vulnerabilities of an asset or group of assets and thereby cause harm to the organization. It is often calculated as the product of the impact of the event and the likelihood of its occurrence.
• Key Point: In ISO/IEC terms, risk involves assessing both the likelihood of a threat materializing and the impact it would have. The standard emphasizes the importance of understanding vulnerabilities when assessing risk.

Summary of Differences:

Threats:

• NIST and ISO/IEC Alignment: Both NIST and ISO/IEC view threats as potential sources of harm, whether intentional or unintentional.
• Difference in Emphasis: NIST tends to emphasize threats in the context of information systems and their operations, while ISO/IEC takes a broader view, considering any potential cause of an unwanted incident.

Risks:

• NIST and ISO/IEC Alignment: Both frameworks define risk as a function of the likelihood and impact of a threat exploiting a vulnerability.
• Difference in Approach: NIST’s definition of risk often focuses on the potential outcomes (e.g., mission impact) in more specific terms related to cybersecurity operations, whereas ISO/IEC offers a more general framework for understanding and managing risk across different types of assets.

In summary, both NIST and ISO/IEC frameworks recognize threats as potential causes of harm and risks as the combination of the likelihood and impact of these threats exploiting vulnerabilities. However, the slight differences in their definitions reflect their distinct approaches to managing and mitigating risks within their respective frameworks.

My Data-Driven AI Models

In the context of cybersecurity, accurately distinguishing between threats and risks is crucial for effective decision-making and resource allocation. A threat is any circumstance or event with the potential to exploit vulnerabilities and cause harm to an organization, while a risk is the potential impact and likelihood of that harm occurring. My data-driven AI models are designed to bridge the gap between these two concepts, offering a sophisticated approach to quantifying and managing both.

By leveraging Bayesian statistics and advanced AI techniques, my models assess the probability and impact of various threats, translating them into quantifiable risks. This allows organizations to identify potential threats, understand their relative significance, and prioritize them accordingly. The models take into account the dynamic nature of the threat landscape, adjusting predictions based on evolving conditions and new data inputs.

For leadership, this means having a clear, data-backed understanding of where the greatest risks lie, enabling informed decision-making. The AI models provide a nuanced view that aligns with established definitions of threats and risks, ensuring that the organization’s approach to cybersecurity is clear and proactive. This alignment with standardized definitions helps prevent miscommunication, ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, and supports a coherent strategy for safeguarding the organization against the most significant threats.

You can connect with me on LinkedIn and join my professional network.

Communicating Cyber Risk in Economic Terms

One of the challenges that cybersecurity professionals often face is effectively communicating the importance of cybersecurity to non-technical stakeholders, such as executives and board members. These stakeholders are typically more concerned with business outcomes and financial metrics than technical details.

Probabilistic risk quantification enables cybersecurity teams to translate technical risks into economic terms, making it easier to communicate their significance to the broader organization. For instance, instead of stating that there is a “high risk” of a cyberattack, a CISO could explain that there is a 25% chance of a cyber event occurring within the next year, which could result in losses of up to $7 million. This framing makes the risk more tangible and relatable to business leaders, helping to secure buy-in for necessary cybersecurity investments.

The Loss Exceedance Curve as shown in the illustration below is one example of how easy it is to quantify cyber-related risks.

The LEC curve can be dynamically updated with new information as it becomes available or used as a risk-modeling tool to compute the ROI on different investments.

The NIST CSF 2.0 framework already emphasizes the importance of communication in the “Respond” (RS) and “Recover” (RC) Functions, particularly in terms of incident response and recovery plans. Integrating probabilistic risk quantification into these areas can enhance an organization’s ability to convey the urgency and scale of potential risks, ensuring that cybersecurity remains a top priority at all levels of the organization.

Practical Examples of Probabilistic Risk Quantification

To illustrate the practical application of probabilistic risk quantification, consider the following examples:

1. Scenario Analysis for Data Breaches: An organization might use probabilistic models to assess the likelihood and potential impact of a data breach based on industry trends, historical data, and threat intelligence. By simulating different scenarios (e.g., varying levels of data sensitivity, breach methods, and attack vectors), the organization can estimate the expected financial losses and identify the most cost-effective security controls to mitigate these risks.
2. Monte Carlo Simulations for Investment Decisions: Before investing in a new security solution, an organization could perform a Monte Carlo simulation to model the potential outcomes of different investment strategies. This technique allows the organization to explore a wide range of scenarios and determine the probability distribution of potential returns, helping to guide investment decisions based on expected value rather than intuition alone. The LEC curves shown above are examples of Monte Carlo Simulations.
3. Quantifying Supply Chain Risks: With supply chain attacks on the rise, organizations can use probabilistic risk quantification to assess the risks posed by third-party vendors. By analyzing the likelihood of a supply chain compromise and the potential downstream effects, organizations can prioritize their monitoring efforts and allocate resources to the most critical areas.

You can connect with me on LinkedIn and join my professional network.

Business leaders and executives value cybersecurity professionals who can translate the complex landscape of risks and threats into clear, actionable business language. By quantifying cybersecurity risks in terms of probabilities and economic impact, you enhance your credibility and enable informed decision-making at the highest levels of the organization. In an increasingly competitive field, the ability to present cybersecurity threats in terms that resonate with business goals and financial outcomes will set you apart as a strategic advisor rather than just a technical expert. This approach positions you as a key player in aligning cybersecurity efforts with overall business strategy, making you an invaluable asset to any organization.

You can also connect with me on my blog at https://timlayton.blog/