Avoidance controls cut Loss Event Frequency in the FAIR taxonomy by reducing contact with threats

Avoidance controls and the FAIR view of loss frequency

Let’s start with a quick brain warm-up that will pay off when you’re sorting through risk models later. In the FAIR taxonomy, Loss Event Frequency is all about how often a potential loss event could happen in a given time. It’s the recurring drumbeat of risk, not the size of the hit when it lands. Now, where do avoidance controls fit in that rhythm? Here’s a compact quiz you might run into in a study guide or a team discussion:

Quiz moment

Where in the FAIR taxonomy do avoidance controls play the biggest role in reducing Loss Event Frequency?

A. Loss Magnitude

B. Vulnerability

C. Contact Frequency

D. Probability of Action

If you picked C, you’re right. Let me unpack why that’s the smart, practical answer.

Why Contact Frequency is the right anchor

Avoidance controls are basically your “stay away” tools. They’re designed to keep you from stepping into risky situations in the first place. In the FAIR framework, that translates most directly into reducing Contact Frequency—the number of times you actually come into contact with a potential threat or risk scenario.

Think of it this way: If you stay out of a shady alley, you dramatically cut the number of times danger could strike. In a business context, that could be as simple as not exposing systems to risky traffic, or as strategic as reconfiguring networks so external threats don’t have easy paths in. The effect is a lower likelihood that a loss event is triggered in the first place. That’s Loss Event Frequency going down, not the size of the hit once it happens.

What the other options really mean (and why they’re not the primary target for avoidance)

• Loss Magnitude (A)

This is about impact: how big the damage would be if a loss event occurs. Avoidance controls don’t typically reduce the ultimate harm once the event happens—they instead cut the odds of the event occurring. If a security breach does happen, the potential damage might still be significant unless you have other controls (like robust backups or incident response) in place. So, Loss Magnitude isn’t the primary lever for avoidance controls.

• Vulnerability (B)

Vulnerability is about weaknesses that allow a threat to realize a loss once contact occurs. It’s the door that’s already been opened. Avoidance controls can influence exposure, sure, but the core role of avoidance is to prevent contact in the first place. Vulnerability can be reduced, but that’s more in the domain of controls that operate after contact is possible or successful, such as patching, hardening, or vulnerability management. The immediate effect of avoidance is cutting down how often contact happens, not the strength of a weakness once it’s faced.

• Probability of Action (D)

This one harkens to the attacker’s own choices and intent. While an organization’s actions can indirectly influence attacker behavior (for example, by making attacks less rewarding), avoidance controls primarily work by reducing how often risk scenarios come into play. They don’t directly change an attacker’s decision tree the way countermeasures aimed at the actor might. In practice, the strongest, most direct impact on frequency comes from reducing exposure, i.e., Contact Frequency.

A concrete, everyday lens

Let’s ground this with a simple metaphor. Imagine a home with doors and windows. Avoidance controls are like locking doors, using security bars, and keeping the porch light on. They don’t magically reduce the size of a storm if a burglar does get inside (that would be Loss Magnitude), but they reduce the number of times a burglar even comes close enough to try (Contact Frequency). If you skip the locks, the burglar has more chances to knock—and more chances for trouble to start.

Bringing it back to FAIR’s taxonomy

In practice, you map your environment, spot where exposure is highest, and line up controls that remove or minimize those exposure points. Some real-world illustrations:

• Network segmentation and strict access controls: Fewer paths equal fewer opportunities for external threats to contact critical systems.

• Least-privilege policies and MFA: Reducing what an insider or compromised account can touch lowers the chance that a loss event gets triggered.

• Vendor risk screening and quarantine for third parties: By limiting external exposure, you shrink the occasions where a third-party could cause harm.

• Security awareness and phishing training: Fewer successful social-engineering events mean fewer moments where contact with a threat becomes actual risk.

A couple of practical, value-forward tips

• Map the contact points before you harden them. Identify where risk scenarios are most likely to come into contact with your environment, then prioritize controls at those chokepoints.

• Measure what matters. Track indicators like blocked connection attempts, failed logins, or incidents averted by automated controls. Those numbers show how much contact frequency has been pared back.

• Balance cost and benefit. Not every exposure point needs the same level of scrutiny. Focus on high-frequency contacts or high-impact scenarios first.

• Pair avoidance with recovery readiness. It’s smart to reduce contact, but also have a plan for quick containment if a risk slips through. That keeps the frequency low and the consequences manageable.

A touch of nuance: where avoidance lands in a broader risk picture

It’s true that avoiding exposure can influence other dimensions indirectly. For example, by reducing contact with certain threats, you may also lessen the chance that a vulnerability is exploited or that a high-risk action by a threat actor becomes even more advantageous. Yet the direct, most transparent pathway through the FAIR lens remains contact reduction. That’s why avoidance controls sit closest to Contact Frequency in the taxonomy, even if they ripple outward in other ways.

A quick recap

• Loss Event Frequency is about how often a loss could happen, not how bad it would be if it did.

• Avoidance controls aim to keep risk scenarios from even appearing, so they primarily reduce Contact Frequency.

• The other options—Loss Magnitude, Vulnerability, and Probability of Action—describe outcomes and pathways that avoidance controls don’t directly alter in the same immediate way.

• Real-world applications include access controls, network segmentation, MFA, vendor screening, and security awareness, all designed to curb exposure and, with it, the chance of a loss event.

If you’re wrestling with a risk model or a “how does this control affect risk” question, run through the 4 Cs: Contact, Condition, Capable, and Consequences. For avoidance-focused questions, the most persuasive answer will usually sit with Contact Frequency, because that’s the lever you pull to keep risk events from happening in the first place.

One last thought to keep things human

Risk work isn’t about chasing perfect numbers. It’s about making better, steadier choices—often by saying no to situations that could tighten the crawl space of risk. That small habit of dodging unnecessary exposure compounds over time, and before you know it, your Loss Event Frequency has quietly become a lot less talkative. The trick is spotting where that frequency lives, and the best way to quiet it is by being deliberate about what you expose yourself to in the first place.

If you’re mapping your own environment, start with the doors and windows you currently leave wide open. Then ask, “What would it take to close them safely, without crippling operations?” The answer, in FAIR terms, often points straight to those contact points—and to those smart avoidance controls that keep trouble from knocking at your door.