Glossary · ISO and management systems

A risk assessment ranks what could go wrong so the budget goes where the harm would be greatest.

A repeatable method for identifying information security risks, judging how likely and how harmful each is, and ranking them for a decision.

Back to the glossary

01 · In plain words

In plain words

A repeatable method for identifying information security risks, judging how likely and how harmful each is, and ranking them for a decision.

You list the things that could go wrong with the information you care about, estimate how likely each is and how bad it would be, and sort the list. That is a risk assessment. The important word is repeatable: two people using your method on the same facts should land near the same answer.

02 · Why it matters

Why it matters

Who cares about this, and what depends on it.

Under ISO 27001 the risk assessment drives almost everything else: the controls you pick, the ones you exclude in the Statement of Applicability, and the objectives you set. Clause 6.1.2 asks you to define the method, and clause 8.2 asks you to actually run it at planned intervals and when things change. An auditor will read your criteria, pick a few risks and trace them through to treatment. Without a sound assessment, every control looks arbitrary and every exclusion looks like a shortcut.

03 · Where you meet it

Where you will meet it

The documents, meetings and reports where it appears.

The risk methodology document
Defines your scales for likelihood and impact, and the level at which a risk must be treated.
The risk register
One row per risk: asset or process, threat, owner, scores and status.
Clauses 6.1.2 and 8.2 of ISO 27001
Planning the method, then performing it; titles only, described in our own words.
Change and project reviews
A new product, vendor or office should trigger a fresh look at the affected risks.

04 · An example

A worked example

An illustration, not a real client.

Illustrative: an edtech platform before exam season

The platform scores risks on a 1 to 5 scale for likelihood and impact. Three stand out: a database outage during live exams (likely 2, impact 5), a teacher account takeover through reused passwords (likely 4, impact 3), and leaked answer keys from a shared drive (likely 3, impact 5). The scores put the answer-key and outage risks at the top, above the account takeover. The team records each with an owner and passes all three to treatment, and writes down that it will reassess when it adds a new proctoring vendor.

05 · Easy to mix up

Easy to mix up with

Neighbouring terms that mean something different.

Gap assessment
A gap assessment compares what you do with what a standard asks. A risk assessment asks what could harm you, regardless of any standard.
Risk treatment
Assessment ranks risks; treatment decides what to do about each one. They are separate steps with separate records.
Vulnerability scan
A scan finds technical weaknesses. Its results can feed a risk assessment, but a scan alone does not judge business impact.

06 · What to do

What to do with it

Practical steps, and the guides that go deeper.

  • Write down your scales and acceptance level before scoring anything.
  • Give every risk a named owner who can actually decide on it.
  • Set the triggers that force a reassessment, such as new vendors or products.
  • Keep the dated results, not just the current register, so an auditor can see history.

Sources: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 clause titles 6.1.2 and 8.2 (not quoted); ISO/IEC 27005 as the guidance standard on information security risk management, at summary level.

Questions about Risk assessment

Asset-based or scenario-based?

Either, if the method is consistent.

ISO 27001:2022 does not force a listing of every asset first. Many teams now assess scenarios or processes, which keeps the register shorter. What auditors check is that the method is defined, applied consistently and produces comparable results.

Quantitative or qualitative scores?

Qualitative is common and accepted.

Most organisations use qualitative scales such as low, medium and high or 1 to 5. Money-based models are possible but need data many small companies lack. A simple scale used honestly beats a complex one nobody trusts.

Want this applied to your own systems?

Our team can walk through where this term touches your scope, your contracts and your evidence.