Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Threat"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reverting to last version not containing links to s1.shard.jp)
(Reverting to last version not containing links to s1.shard.jp)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
http://www.textcolipas.com
 
 
I would argue (no surpise there) that threat has little to do with "the potential (or likelihood)" of something bad happening. Instead, a threat should be understood as the "bad happening" itself. In other words, it is the description of that atomic event. Potential and likelihood artifically introduce the concept that a threat is to be understood within the context of probability. I don't think that the definition of threat can, nor should it bear this additional criteria. The concepts of potential and likelihood are more appropriate in describing risk.
 
I would argue (no surpise there) that threat has little to do with "the potential (or likelihood)" of something bad happening. Instead, a threat should be understood as the "bad happening" itself. In other words, it is the description of that atomic event. Potential and likelihood artifically introduce the concept that a threat is to be understood within the context of probability. I don't think that the definition of threat can, nor should it bear this additional criteria. The concepts of potential and likelihood are more appropriate in describing risk.

Latest revision as of 07:50, 3 June 2009

I would argue (no surpise there) that threat has little to do with "the potential (or likelihood)" of something bad happening. Instead, a threat should be understood as the "bad happening" itself. In other words, it is the description of that atomic event. Potential and likelihood artifically introduce the concept that a threat is to be understood within the context of probability. I don't think that the definition of threat can, nor should it bear this additional criteria. The concepts of potential and likelihood are more appropriate in describing risk.