Criticism of modern approaches to the interpretation of the concept of «threat» in technical disciplines: elements of theoretical absurdity of some researchers' ideas

Massunov Sergei L'vovich Officer, Department of Energy of the Komi Science Centre Institute for Social, Economic and Energy Problems of the North of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 167000, Russia, Komi Republic, Syktyvkar, Kommunisticheskaya str., 26 massunov@energy.komisc.ru

Introduction

The term "threat" in question represents one of the main categories of the conceptual apparatus of such a new direction of theoretical thought as the science of security. At the same time, its use is usually associated with the possibility of causing some kind of harm to the object under study. However, despite the obvious simplicity of this term and its widespread use in everyday life and legal practice, the scientific community does not stop arguing about its substantive basis. Among the most extensive domestic studies on this topic are the articles by M. F. Gatsko, M. Yu. Zelenkov, A. G. Smirnova, G. A. Atamanov, O. N. Lopachuk, A. B. Feonichev and K. Yu. Meleshin. However, as the analysis of existing publications has shown, the presented approaches to the interpretation of the threat have a number of fundamental drawbacks, sometimes bordering on elementary theoretical amateurism.

Among the selected works, a special place is occupied by the theoretical reflections of G. A. Atamanov, expressed by him not only in journal publications, but also on his own website "AGA-Sofia". The author of the site has written about 20 articles dealing with security issues, including critical assessments of existing approaches to defining the main terms of the conceptual apparatus under consideration. Exceptional attention is paid to the work of this author for two reasons. On the one hand, his works express a number of significant criticisms of some generally accepted positions in the field of security theory. Moreover, the argumentation of the presented position is based, obviously, for simplicity, on primitive everyday judgments, which, from our point of view, have certain inaccuracies that require detailed analysis. And the second argument is that the author of these works considers a number of fairly common controversial points in determining the meaning of the term "threat", which should be paid attention to.

Before proceeding to the consideration of the stated issue, I would like to draw attention to the fact that quite often the authors make one characteristic mistake when building the general theoretical foundations of a discipline. When interpreting words such as "concept" and "term", they believe that the word "concept" is nothing more than a thought that arose in the researcher's head (that is, it is a kind of process of understanding – figurative judgment about something), and "term" is the name of this thought under certain conditions conditions. A similar point of view is given in explanatory and scientific dictionaries, for example, in the Great Encyclopedic Dictionary ^[1]. Therefore, according to these authors, the appearance in laws or scientific articles of such section names as, for example, "Basic concepts used in the law" is meaningless, because the concept is just a thought ^[2].

However, in our opinion, the position is more objective, assuming that a term without a concept does not exist, as well as concepts without a term, they are one. If there is a word, then its meaning must be known. Attempts to separate the "term" from the "concept" are meaningless. Therefore, the use of such section names as "Basic concepts ...", as well as "Basic terms ..." is completely legitimate.

For clarity, let's illustrate the situation that has arisen (Fig.1).

Figure 1 shows that the emergence of thought does not yet mean the formation of a concept. A thought becomes a concept only when it receives a name – term and a corresponding definition – definition. However, until this happens, the thought remains just a thought in the mind of the researcher. Accordingly, the modern generally accepted approach is deeply theoretically erroneous, assuming that the concept is "a thought that distinguishes and generalizes objects ...". A concept is an expression of thought mediated by words, "distinguishing and generalizing objects of a certain class according to common and in their totality specific features for them." Or more simply: "A concept is an expression in words of a thought ...". Not the thought itself, but its expression. Thought can only highlight a number of objects that are similar in some ways to each other. But as soon as thinking gives them a name and definition, a "concept" will arise. For example, mental images create the concept of "tree" only when the term of the concept and its definition appear (Fig. 2).

Therefore, the name of such a section of the law as "Basic terms ..." implies only a listing of the names of terms used, for example: challenge, threat, danger, safety, etc. On the other hand, the chapter "Basic concepts ..." is deeper in meaning and requires providing not only terms of concepts, but also their definitions (see Fig.1).

The concept of a "threat" coming from a person

Returning to the main topic of the article, I would like to emphasize the fact that the meaning of the term "threat" is somewhat different for different fields of application. As A. G. Smirnova notes, the threat can be interpreted in two ways – as a characteristic of reality phenomena of different nature – emanating from a person and from the external environment ^[3]. Accordingly, as a characteristic of subject-subject/ object and object–subject/object relations ("subject/object" according to the principle of "living /inanimate").

In the most common situation, when someone is able to influence another person or something - the subject of subject/ object relations – the need for such a characteristic of possible negative consequences arises in the context of everyday communication and, accordingly, the related part of law and social sciences. For the case of everyday communication, the concept of threat is exhaustively defined in the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language: firstly, it is a promise to cause some kind of evil; secondly, the possibility of something unpleasant; thirdly, the one who (what) can cause evil, trouble ^[4]. From the point of view of public communication, these meanings are quite enough for a meaningful description of the concept. However, for the purposes of scientific research, clearer and unambiguous formulations are needed, and there are some inaccuracies in the above three interpretations of the term:

Firstly, the words "evil" and "nuisance" have no scientific meaning;

secondly, a promise is an intention, the fulfillment of which is declared to someone, but in reality there are many examples when a threat arises without any promises;

and thirdly, the one who can cause harm, trouble, is the source of the threat, not the threat itself.

For a more correct definition of the concept of threat used in everyday life (politics, jurisprudence), one of the examples given in the article by Atamanov G. A. can be analyzed ^[5], which was considered when justifying the legality of the expression "threat to the security of an object". This is the name of a well-known song by an artist under the pseudonym Professor Lebedinsky, "I'll kill you, boatman!". For the sake of clarity, the analysis of this expression is shown in Fig. 3., from which it follows that in this trivial, in fact, example, the source of the threat is someone "I", the object of the threat is "boatman", and the threat itself is the word "kill".

From this it can be concluded that the threat in the case of human influence is the intention (possibility) of harming someone/something (the object of the threat). Moreover, the intention can be both explicit (in the considered expression) and hidden. As an illustration of the hidden form, let's slightly change the phrase shown above – "He can kill a boatman!". For the "boatman", the expression "can kill" indicates the hidden possibility of an undesirable consequence, that is, a hidden threat. Hidden – because the "boatman" does not know about it, but there is still a threat of death. Both explicit and implicit forms correspond to a real threat, that is, one that already exists.

The article ^[5] asserts that the threat must necessarily be "a manifested intention or a manifested possibility of causing harm," moreover, as the author further emphasizes, "manifested does not mean known," since "one is an ontological, another is an epistemological concept." From our point of view, this is an erroneous position, and simply an elementary sophism. Manifested means, according to the dictionaries of the Russian language, shown, discovered, demonstrated, respectively, became known. It is difficult to imagine any factor that has manifested itself, but no one knows about it! These concepts are correlative – one presupposes the other. Therefore, a manifested threat means that it has become known, has moved from the category of hidden to the category of explicit threats (revealed).

In this regard, the further maxims of this author that if the hidden threat does not manifest itself in any way, then it does not exist and therefore is not a threat at all, but simply a "fantasy" seem completely untenable. However, in the above example with a hidden threat to the boatman, this so-called "fantasy" can end fatally. For him, the possibility of harmful consequences does not manifest itself in any way, but the threat still exists!

Let's give another more compelling example from world history. In September 1936, Germany adopted a four-year plan to put the economy on a war footing. The Soviet Union faced a hidden threat of war with Germany, which was carefully veiled by the political efforts of the German side. Since the threat did not manifest itself in any way, from the point of view of the author of the work ^[5] it is not a threat at all, but just a "fantasy". In 1939, the USSR concluded the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact and supplied feed grain, oil, ores, etc. to Germany until the outbreak of the war. 1941 is coming, and this threat-"fantasy" is realized with 100% probability and leads I.V. Stalin into a state of shock. But before that, the Wehrmacht troops are concentrating on the border of the Soviet state in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and, accordingly, the hidden threat turns into an explicit one.

In the above-mentioned wording of the threat, the possibility of harm is also noted in parentheses instead of intent. This takes into account cases of damage caused by a person to the subject of the threat, even if he did not have such a goal – unintentionally. As emphasized in ^[3], in such situations it may not be about threats, but about accidents or negligence. This is an erroneous statement. Accidents and negligence are an assessment of the incident as a fait accompli – the end result. At the stage of the origin of the event, the possibility of exposure is still a threat.

The next controversial issue that draws attention to in some works is whether the threat can be potential. For example, the article ^[5] argues that, firstly, the threat cannot be potential, since it belongs to the category of possible, and, secondly, dividing it into two groups - real and potential is a methodological error, since the "opposition to the real" is either virtual or fictitious. However, these statements are far from the truth, since:

1) the universal "possibility" in the case under consideration is two-dimensional - there is a possibility of a threat and the threat itself as an opportunity to influence the object under consideration (Fig.4). Therefore, potentiality as a possibility of a threat is legitimate. In other words, a potential threat is one that does not exist yet, but it may appear due to the development of any events. And the process of accounting for it is called in a simple word – foresight as a result of analyzing the prospects for the development of events or foresight.

Accordingly, the passage of the author ^[5] about the far-fetched nature of the majority of threats taken into account in scientific research is absolutely not adequate to the significance of the tasks being solved. As an example of a potential threat, we can recall a more modern event – the "freezing" of funds in the form of international reserves of the Bank of Russia in European countries after the introduction of restrictions on a special military operation.

The possibility of such behavior by European politicians had not previously appeared in any way – it was not even assumed that about 300 billion dollars of the Bank of Russia would be stolen by a highly civilized Western elite. However, this event happened, the threat was realized. The fact that it was possible, namely, it could manifest itself, had a potential character, it was necessary to calculate as a result of a long-term analysis of the entire range of consequences of the actions taken and, accordingly, take preventive response measures. From the point of view of Atamanov G. A., the probability of such a threat is zero, the latter is "completely unrealizable" – a "fantasy", since it was difficult to even assume its feasibility – in former times such international lawlessness could be perceived as casus belli! However, there is a price to pay for the professional incompetence and the state of political abuse of the country's leadership!

2) using the words "virtual" or the completely inappropriate "fictitious" instead of the name "potential threat" (Latin potentia – opportunity) ... somewhat unsuccessfully. Currently, it is customary to call "virtual" anything artificially created through programming based on computer technology. And "fiction" is any fictitious provisions.

Thus, in contrast to the statement of the author of works ^{[2, 5]} that a threat is necessarily "a demonstration by an acting object of the desire and/or the ability to harm the object of influence", it is shown above that, in fact, it is not necessarily a demonstration – the threat may be hidden or, in general, potential. In addition, the reference in this formulation to the fact that the object must be valid is superfluous. The object can be any – any - acting, inactive (not yet having any influence), real, potential.

The main characteristic of a threat as a concept is the possibility of negative consequences. At the same time, some researchers suggest taking into account the nature of the emerging consequences of the threat during its implementation. For example, in the article (Atamanov G. A. Sources of threats [electronic resource]. URL: http://gatamanov. blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html (date of appeal: 06/25/2022)) it is proposed not to consider the source of the threat as such if it represents "a warning, a call to action with the ultimate goal of saving the object of influence from much greater troubles." However, the threat remains a threat in any case, no matter what further goals are pursued for its possible implementation (see Fig. 3). Therefore, in the above by the author (Atamanov G. A. Sources of threats [electronic resource]. URL: http://gatamanov.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html (date of appeal: 06/25/2022)) an example from a poem by A.S. Pushkin ("The naughty boy has already frozen his finger: it hurts and is funny to him, and the mother threatens him out the window") the mother is the source of the threat of punishment of this boy, for whatever purpose this punishment was not carried out.

From the same point of view, Smirnova A. G.'s conclusion that "a threat denotes a model of building relationships in society, according to which the intention to cause harm allows the subject to achieve their goals without open confrontation" ^[3] seems untenable. And "at the heart of such a model is the possibility of punishment for undesirable behavior," which is "designed to put pressure on the subject." In fact, everything that goes beyond the possibility of negative consequences (the intention to achieve any goals, punishment for undesirable behavior, pressure on the subject) is no longer a threat (see Fig. 3). The characteristics given by Smirnova A. G. are inherent in such concepts as "blackmail" and "ultimatum", and the threat is simply used at their core. And it is by building relationships with the use of blackmail or ultimatums that you can get the model of relations in society described by Smirnova A. G., and the threat is only a tool for building it.

In accordance with the above arguments, the definition of a threat by Milburn T. W., Watman K. H. as "a set of cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions of the subject arising in response to the perception of harm" is unreliable ^[6]. Objections arise for two reasons:

- firstly, the possibility of a negative impact is objective and does not imply any response from the subject of the impact (for example, in the above case with the boatman, it acts regardless of whether he knows about the presence of an ill-wisher or not);

- and secondly, the reactions of the subject's perception of the resulting harm go beyond the threat itself. It should be noted that the validity of this statement is quite obvious in the case of possible influence on any inanimate object – the latter cannot have any perceptual reactions.

Among other things, one should take into account the fact that as soon as a threat begins to be realized, it ceases to be a threat and becomes an influencing factor. Accordingly, the introduction into the field of general security theory, for example, such concepts as "attack" ("a single action to implement a threat") and "attack" ("a process of several attacks coordinated in purpose and time"), which is proposed in ^{[2, 5]}, loses its meaning.

On the other hand, the use of such terms is not typical for the field of scientific research. Currently, in addition to common practice, some humanities and military arts, there is a strictly limited possibility of their use in certain fields of knowledge. Firstly, the concept of "attack" is used in jurisprudence as a legal assessment of the events of everyday life. Secondly, we can talk about cyber attacks as malicious interference in someone's information system, understanding in this expression the figurative meaning of the word "attack" - a rapid and decisive offensive. Then there is no point in introducing the concept of a cyber attack, since an attack is already an attack. Here we can talk exclusively about cyberspace. And, thirdly, the expression "panic attack" has found application in medicine in its figurative meaning – as a sudden attack of severe anxiety. In technical disciplines, reasoning, for example, about the "attack" of ionizing radiation from the emergency unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant on the population of the European part of the country or about any of its "attack" on someone/something, or "attack" of corrosion on the metal body of equipment, etc. - can only claim to be at some stage of mental disability. From a scientific point of view, the realization of a threat is an accomplished act of harmful influence on someone/something and nothing more. Concepts such as "attack" and "attack", in addition to military art, have a greater everyday meaning, since both imply the fact of a meaningful deliberate action.

In a number of works, the authors propose to include in the composition of the threat not what follows after its implementation, but what is its source. At the same time, it is concluded that it is "objective" and, accordingly, represents a certain phenomenon ^{[2, 5]}. In fact, a threat is the possibility of negative consequences of a phenomenon (see Figure 4). Accordingly, the possibility of consequences of a phenomenon certainly cannot be called the phenomenon itself.

Interpretation of the "threat" in technical disciplines and criticism of interpretations of related concepts

In the case of threats emanating from the external environment (object-subject or object-object interaction), which is characteristic of the tasks being solved in technical discipline x, the forces of influence are unintended and, quite often, inevitable. Therefore, in the above formulation of the threat, it will no longer be about intention, but only about the possibility of a negative impact. Accordingly, in technical disciplines, a threat is presented as any possibility of harmful consequences as a result of the impact of something on someone/something.

When analyzing threats emanating from the external environment, quite often inaccuracies arise when determining their source.

The most absurd, from our point of view, in the interpretation of the concept of "threat source" is the one proposed by the author (Atamanov G. A. Sources of threats [electronic resource]. URL: http://gatamanov.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html (date of reference: 06/25/2022)) definition of a source as "a set of a material object and conditions of access to it." This approach contains a logical error, which is called the error of defective induction. The conclusion about the content of the concept is made on the basis of hasty generalization, namely, on the basis of insufficiently substantiated assumptions. Not all available material objects are sources. An example from the field of energy: a power plant is an energy source, a transformer is an energy converter, although both are accessible objects. Etc., there are countless examples of the inferiority of the proposed formulation. The mistake lies in the fact that according to the dictionaries of the Russian language, it is more correct to consider the definition of the term "source" as "a place where something is born, appears, begins to spread." Then the expressions "a source of light, heat, electricity, knowledge, etc." become understandable. According to this definition, everything that creates a threat will be called its source. Therefore, the opinion of the above-mentioned author that if a brick is thrown off the roof by the wind, then the source of the threat is the person who left it there, is mistaken. The source of the threat, of course, is the wind, and in this case it is most likely a hurricane, since the usual wind will not move a brick from its place: – not a worker who was not going to drop a brick from the roof, but left it by accident; – not the master who put this employee at this place of work; – and not the mother who gave birth to this negligent worker, but the forces of nature, under the influence of which the event took place.

Having mistakenly defined the concept of a threat source, the author of the same article wrongly calls absurd the formulation of the source of the threat to information security, presented in GOST R 50922-2006, as "a subject (an individual, a material object or a physical phenomenon) that is the direct cause of the threat to information security." The methodological principle of Occam's Razor applied by him to substantiate his position on discarding, in the generally accepted formulation, the so–called "everything superfluous" (as a result of which, from his point of view, it turned out primitively: "the source of the threat is the cause of the threat") is an obvious sophism. The existing definition clearly states that the source of the threat is not some reason, but "an entity (an individual, a material object or a physical phenomenon)", which creates this threat (is "the direct cause of the threat ..."). And it's simple and understandable.

In addition, it is interesting to see the proof given further in article ^[5] of the inconsistency of the GOST formulation of the source of the threat to information security (namely, what happened after Occam's Razor: "the source of the threat is the cause of the threat") by analogy with the alleged absurdity of defining "the source of narzan as the cause of narzan". The fallacy of comparison lies in the logic of reasoning, namely, in the incorrectness of the analogy of the initial positions. If the source of the threat creates the threat itself, then the source of narzan does not form narzan itself, it only indicates its presence in some area. Accordingly, the conclusion expressed by Atamanov G. A. on the comparability of these statements is false, and represents nothing more than another sophism.

Let's try to analyze in more detail the essence of the claims made to the Gost formulation by Atamanov G. A. using the simplest example: "A hurricane creates a threat of urban destruction." That is, the "immediate cause of the emerging threat" is a hurricane. Indeed, according to the dictionaries of the Russian language, the cause is, among other things, the one /who/what is the culprit of something, causes something. Then the hurricane as the culprit of the emerging threat of urban destruction can be considered its cause. But, on the other hand, a hurricane is a source of threat of destruction, it creates it. That is, the wording in GOST R 50922-2006 is certainly correct. However, Atamanov G. A. believes that "the threat as a phenomenon is confused with the cause of its occurrence" (Atamanov G. A. Sources of threats [electronic resource]. URL: http://gatamanov.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html (date of application: 06/25/2022)). But in this example, the cause of the threat is a hurricane, and it cannot be confused with the threat itself in any way. In addition, a hurricane is a natural phenomenon affecting urban buildings. Atamanov G. A. believes that a threat is a phenomenon, however, in this case it is shown that the source of the threat, and not the threat itself, is represented by the phenomenon! A threat is just the possibility of negative consequences from the effects of this phenomenon. The proposal to define the threat of a hurricane as a "phenomenon phenomenon" turns out to be incorrect.

Considering the above, the claims of this author to the "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of international information security" on the issue of the absence of designated sources of threats are unclear (Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of international information security [electronic resource]. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/46614 (date of application: 07/20/2022)). It is quite obvious that they are not information and communication technologies, techniques, or information and communication tools, which are being discussed with sarcasm by the author as such. It is quite enough that the source in this case will be considered any user (group of users) who is able to use information and communication technologies for one reason or another to the detriment of the interests of the Russian state, that is, all those who are capable of this and have some motivation for such actions. Indeed, when developing such documents, there is no point in specifying specific sources of threats, it is enough only to take into account the negative consequences that may arise as a result of their possible actions. And in this case, the list of these possible actions (threats) with the verb "use" (to which G. A. Atamanov objects) is absolutely legitimate ("the use of information and communication technologies in military, political and other spheres in order to undermine sovereignty ...; the use of information and communication technologies for terrorist purposes ...; the use of information and communication technologies technologies for conducting computer attacks on the information resources of states ...", etc.).

In addition to the disadvantages of determining the source of the threat, it is necessary to pay attention to some errors made by researchers when analyzing issues closely related to the concept of the threat itself.

The most absurd in its incompetence is the statement of some authors that the term "threat to the security of an object" is a "gross methodological error", since "the object is threatened, not its security", and therefore the expression "threat to the security object" should be considered the most accurate ^[5]. Firstly, the phrase "security object" is theoretically illiterate. Safety is a characteristic of an object: the safety of automobile traffic, the safety of nuclear power plants, the safety of electric welding, etc. For example, personal security is the security of some person, but not the security person! Otherwise, there is some ambiguity, and security will have a face?!! It is quite clear that this is absurd! It's like saying "object of speed" instead of the phrase "speed of an object", instead of "weight of an object" – "object of weight"! The absurdity of this approach is obvious! Secondly, the expression "security threat" indicates a specific characteristic of the object to which a possible harmful effect will be directed. This phrase is similar to such generally accepted expressions as a threat to the integrity, environmental friendliness, reliability of the facility, etc. Therefore, its legality should not be in doubt.

In some works, it is believed that the threat can only be directed at an object, but not at its interests in any way. For example, article ^[5] states that the expression threat to "interests is slang, an idiomatic phrase, ... ordinary stupidity." The following can be objected to this so pretentious statement. According to the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, the word "interest" has several meanings, including "that which is for the benefit of someone/something, serves for the benefit of someone/something" ^[4]. Therefore, the expression threat to interests, meaning the possibility of harming interests, implies the possibility of harming what constitutes the benefit of someone/something. For example, state interests include such components as ensuring stable and sustainable development of the state, improving the standard of living of the population, achieving high intellectual and innovative potential of society, etc. Accordingly, harming them means any damage to the state in the implementation of the above-mentioned goals. In the expression "harm in the realization of interests", the word "in the implementation" is usually omitted for simplification. In fact, this expression is similar to such names of harm as social, moral, spiritual, etc. I would like to emphasize once again that the phrase in question is a common, well–known, commonly used, generally accepted concept that is neither slang, nor an idiom, nor, moreover, any stupidity.

The opinion that the expression "threat of unauthorized access" is absurd seems to be erroneous ^{[2, 5]}. This point of view is justified by the fact that, firstly, allegedly, this phrase does not identify the source of the threat, therefore any assumptions about it are speculative, and, secondly, unauthorized access "is not harm", it is just an event, contact "without a formal permit", which "in most cases" there are no negative consequences.

However, in contrast to these statements, I would like to emphasize that hacking a cyber defense system is an illegal act. There are certain arguments for closing information from free access. Therefore, unauthorized access is always accompanied by a number of harmful consequences, and the most obvious of them is image loss. In addition, each cyberattack has its own purpose, and far from being selfless. Accordingly, the magnitude of the threat of unauthorized access determines the value of this disinterestedness. Moreover, it is absolutely not necessary to identify a specific attacker in this case, it is enough only to take into account the negative consequences that may arise as a result of his possible actions and take adequate response measures. Therefore, the phrase "threat of unauthorized access" is legitimately and widely used in determining measures to protect the information space.

Conclusion

An analysis of the shortcomings of theoretical approaches to the definition of the term "threat", outlined by a number of authors in journal publications, as well as on the Agha-Sofia website, allowed us to identify a number of fundamental omissions that need to be paid attention to when using it. Among them, it should be emphasized that the threat does not necessarily have to be manifested. If it is real, it can be both explicit and hidden. In addition, its potential form is legitimate, due to the two-dimensionality of the universal "possibility". At the same time, the threat cannot be a phenomenon, since it represents only the possibility of harmful consequences of any phenomenon.

The article draws attention to the fallacy of attempts by some authors to extend the scope of the definition of "threat" to the concepts of "blackmail" and "ultimatum", as well as to the possibility of perception responses when harm is caused as a result of the threat.

In contrast to the general case, when a threat is formulated as the intention (possibility) of causing any harm to someone/something (the object of the threat) on the part of someone/something (the source of the threat), for the forces of external influence (object-subject or object-object interaction), the influence is unintended. Therefore, in technical disciplines, a threat is presented as the possibility of harmful consequences as a result of object–object/ subject relations (the impact of something on someone/something).

Taking into account the characteristics of the concept under consideration, the inaccuracies allowed by researchers in defining the term "source of threat" are analyzed, and the correctness of the concept "source of threat to information security" used in some government documents is shown. In addition, the validity of the use of certain terms closely related to the concept of threat, such as "threat to the security of an object", "threat to interests", "threat of unauthorized access", is justified.