The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
The correct answer is: Yes, the incident does meet the definition because Johan is using his authorized access and may cause damage by violating security procedures.
Explanation
This scenario represents a classic example of an unwitting or unintentional insider threat. According to the National Insider Threat Task Force (NITTF) and Executive Order 13587, an insider is any person with authorized access to U.S. Government resources, such as facilities, information, or networks. An insider threat is the potential for this person to use their authorized access, either wittingly or unwittingly, to cause harm to the security of the United States.
Johan, as a janitor working in a Department of Defense facility, is an “insider” because he has been granted authorized access to the building. The threat arises from his actions. By opening a secure door for anyone who approaches, he is using his authorized presence to bypass the facility’s access control systems. These systems are a primary line of defense designed to verify the identity and authorization of every individual entering. Johan’s violation of this fundamental security procedure, even if well-intentioned, creates a significant vulnerability.
This vulnerability could be exploited by an adversary to cause serious damage. An unauthorized person could gain entry to steal government property, access sensitive information, commit an act of sabotage, or harm personnel. The definition of an insider threat does not require malicious intent; negligence that compromises security is sufficient.
The other answer choices are incorrect. An insider threat is not limited to individuals who work directly with classified information or who hold a security clearance. The threat is about the misuse of any level of authorized access, including the basic physical access that Johan possesses. His actions, not his job title or clearance status, are what constitute the insider threat.
