An inability to quantify risk is attributing a skill set to an industry which is probably not responsible for quantifying risk. Infosec researchers should only

An inability to quantify risk is attributing a skill set to an industry which is probably not responsible for quantifying risk. Infosec researchers should only be beholden to identifying and detailing risks. There are infosec subsets that require better skills to identify risks, but those subsets are the one's more responsible for quantifying risk in an appropriate manner not the ENTIRE industry. Quantifying risk is a very difficult endeavor to do properly so any measure of it is done from the security researchers biased perspective. Yes infosec researchers seem to want attention for their work this is often because there is not near enough attention paid to their work. Actuarial science is an entire professional field specifically tasked with quantifying risk, at least from an insurance perspective. The inferred statement, at least in the title, is that not only do infosec researchers now have to stay up on crypto, assembly, js[buzzword] framework and on and on, but now they must also become actuarial scientists. As a neophyte in the industry I'm having trouble getting caught up to a static point let alone that the static point is a moving and rapidly accelerating target and not in my favor. Adding to this unachievable standard I now must study and become at least somewhat proficient in actuarial sciences is maddening!