Why might a financial institution decide to take no further action on a denial-of-service vulnerability?

Why might a financial institution decide to take no further action on a denial-of-service vulnerability?

• A. The needed countermeasure is too complicated to deploy
• B. There are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent this risk from happening
• C. The likelihood of the risk occurring is unknown
• D. The cost of countermeasure outweighs the value of the asset and potential loss

Answer: (D)

A financial institution might decide to take no further action on a denial-of-service vulnerability primarily if the cost of implementing a countermeasure outweighs the value of the asset and the potential loss associated with the risk. This approach is grounded in the principle of cost-benefit analysis, which suggests that resources should be allocated to risks that represent the greatest potential for significant loss. In scenarios where the potential financial impact of a denial-of-service attack is relatively low compared to the effort, resources, and costs required to implement protective measures, the institution may conclude that it is more appropriate to accept the risk rather than invest heavily in mitigation. The business context also plays a crucial role in this decision. If a financial institution determines that the likelihood of a denial-of-service attack is low, and the existing safeguards are deemed sufficient, it can make a reasoned decision to accept the risk without further investment. Thus, the focus shifts to prioritizing the allocation of resources to higher risk areas where the potential losses could be significantly greater. This approach enables the institution to maintain operational efficiency while still managing overall risk effectively.

A financial institution might decide to take no further action on a denial-of-service vulnerability primarily if the cost of implementing a countermeasure outweighs the value of the asset and the potential loss associated with the risk. This approach is grounded in the principle of cost-benefit analysis, which suggests that resources should be allocated to risks that represent the greatest potential for significant loss. In scenarios where the potential financial impact of a denial-of-service attack is relatively low compared to the effort, resources, and costs required to implement protective measures, the institution may conclude that it is more appropriate to accept the risk rather than invest heavily in mitigation.

The business context also plays a crucial role in this decision. If a financial institution determines that the likelihood of a denial-of-service attack is low, and the existing safeguards are deemed sufficient, it can make a reasoned decision to accept the risk without further investment. Thus, the focus shifts to prioritizing the allocation of resources to higher risk areas where the potential losses could be significantly greater. This approach enables the institution to maintain operational efficiency while still managing overall risk effectively.