|M.C. Escher (1898 - 1972), Bond Of Union, 1956.|
One important factor is fear, consider for example these data as fear relates to perception of risk:...the fear of earthquakes has been reported to be more common than the fear of slipping on the bathroom floor although the latter kills many more people than the former...the fear of a flying is still widespread despite the chances of being involved in an aircraft accident are about 1 in 11 million while your chances of being killed in an automobile accident are 1 in 5000. Bruce Schneier has actually posted on his blog some other interesting examples of human perception of risk. How perception matters for security risk professionals ? Well, assume you would like to drive security decisions, then understanding of human reaction to risk is critical factor to consider in risk mitigation decision making.
Understanding cognitive science basics is very important. Consider for example security awareness. Studies show that awareness shift the perception of risk. In general you are aware of a risk that is close to you or of an event that you experienced before, this would drive risk mitigation decision and investment on security. Statistics from OWASP for example shows that organizations that have experienced a public data breach spend more on security in the development process that those that have not.
Basically a breach or an occurred event drive risk awareness and is an important factor in risk mitigation decision and security spending, the relationship of bad events to risk perception is also confirmed by cognitive science,... events that have been experienced before are easily brought to mind are imagined and judged to be more likely than events that could not easily imagined and never occurred.
Another important aspect of risk is what is referred as the appetite of risk or being risk adverse because of a potential gain. In general humans are risk adverse with respect to gains such as preferring a sure thing over gamble with a potential loss and taking a risk in the event the loss is small comparing with the potential gain. Consider for example risk perception biased by human greed. Sometimes risk decision are blind of potential losses because of lack of due diligence on what losses can be. This is what someone refer as taking the risk as being the chicken or being the hawk. Another way to think about risk vs. gain is to rationalize what is the residual risk left if an event would occur where the probability of the event can be estimated based upon real incident/events data. In essence is the what I could loose factor for the business gain of taking the risk. This require being able to visualize and articulate the risk event and simulate the losses that would occur if the event would materialize. In my day to day job for example I would use the threat scenarios and simulate the event of a loss to make the point to the business of the potential loss due to the exploit of a vulnerability.
Threat and risk modeling can be a useful way to visualize an attack, which threats an attack might materialize, the vulnerabilities that can be exploited and how these vulnerabilities can cause an impact. Nevertheless, even if the threat scenario is visualized, the decision of whether to deploy a countermeasure or not is a risk judgment decision that is biased by business factors such as usability, customer impact and even with visualized threat scenario showing the risk potential, perception could still be such as that risk would be acceptable. If the threat scenario applies directly to a real event or incident that occurred before most likely the associated risk won't be accepted as well as if the threat scenario applies to a compliance risk event that could be found by the incoming audit.
In essence, for certain organizations, previous incidents and audit findings can drive security decisions more then threat assessments such as using risk analysis and threat modeling.
Another important factor of perception of risk is whether the risk impacts an organization or an individual responsibility directly or indirectly independently from the fact that the event occurred or not. If the impact is direct such as in the case of assuming the liability for the loss of a bad event occurring risk awareness will be higher then if is indirect and happen to a third party would be considered a non-liability.
In essence to make the cased for risk you need to consider how risk can be differently perceived by the business factoring fear as related to loss and rationalize residual risk as related to business gains. If the organization is fear driven in risk decision making including data from previous incidents and fraud that the companies experienced before can help to drive security awareness as factor of risk mitigation. If the organization is audit driven use the audit findings and non-compliance liabilities and made the case for mitigation.
Ultimately the adoption of security initiatives and security spending can be driven with informed risk decisions using threat models and risk factors such as likelihood and impact but also by factoring perceived security and risk vs. actual/real security and risk.