How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions. (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Amundrud, Øystein; Aven, Terje; Flage, Roger
• Is Part Of: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Volume 231:Number 3(2017:Jun.)
• Page Start: 286
• Page End: 294
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Risk -- security -- threat -- vulnerability -- value; Reliability (Engineering) -- Mathematical models -- Periodiclals; Risk assessment -- Mathematical models -- Periodicals; Engineering design -- Mathematical models -- Periodicals; 620.00452
• DOI: 10.1177/1748006X17699145
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-006X

Abstract

In safety settings, understood as situations involving the potential occurrence of unintentional events, it is common to define risk as a combination of consequences and associated probabilities or associated uncertainties. On the other hand, in security settings, understood as situations involving the potential occurrence of intentional malicious events, risk is commonly defined as the triplet asset/value, threat and vulnerability. One motivation often mentioned for the latter is that probability is considered inappropriate for intentional acts. In this article, we argue that it is unsuitable and unnecessary to define risk differently in these two settings. We show that risk, defined as the combination of future consequences and associated uncertainties, can be seen as compatible with the triplet definition of security risk. It also excludes probability from the definition of risk but explicitly includes uncertainty, which is more fundamental and present regardless of the type of events involved. The value dimension is integrated with the consequences as these are with respect to something that humans value. The purpose of the article is to contribute to a consolidation of the safety and security risk management fields at the fundamental level.