# Meet ThreatPad!

**URL:** https://threatmodelingconnect.discourse.group/t/meet-threatpad/741
**Category:** Techniques & Tooling
**Created:** [December 31, 2024, 7:41pm UTC](https://threatmodelingconnect.discourse.group/t/meet-threatpad/741 "2024-12-31T19:41:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![steve\_gibbons](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/threatmodelingconnect.discourse.group/steve_gibbons/32/314_2.png) [@steve\_gibbons](https://threatmodelingconnect.discourse.group/u/steve_gibbons)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2025, 3:05pm UTC](https://threatmodelingconnect.discourse.group/t/meet-threatpad/741/13 "2025-04-18T15:05:28Z")

</div>

I _love_ the simplicity (but) I’d suggest more granularity in the rating scales. Low, medium, and high are great for first swag, but (for example) real world likelihood/frequeny can vary from:

- as unlikely to occur as an extinction-level asteroid strike to
- occurs thousands of times per minute/second

And real world “how bad” can vary from:

- Trivial, walk it off to
- Extinction level event

Cost is one of the easiest to quantify:

- Pocket Change through
- Decades of GDP

I’ve used logarithmic scales In the past to help with some pretty huge dynamic ranges and also made creative use of adverbs (eg. extremely unlikely) but I don’t have any better suggestions than those.

I _do_ love what you’ve created

---

_[View the full topic](https://threatmodelingconnect.discourse.group/t/meet-threatpad/741)._