Two WLAN flaws have similar impact: one needs rare physical console access; the other is a common remote wireless exploit. How should ratings differ?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Same crash damage, different odds of the crash—remote wireless is the busy highway; rare console access is a locked side alley. When impact matches, the common path gets the higher risk score. Likelihood is half the risk equation, not a footnote.
Full Explanation
Risk rating multiplies or otherwise combines likelihood and impact. When impacts are comparable, the vulnerability with substantially higher exploit likelihood—here a common remote wireless path—receives the higher rating. Treating impact alone as sufficient, or ranking by CVE text length, misapplies CWSP risk-analysis practice.