Which threat risk level would likely be assigned to an unproven URL without an established history of normal behavior?

When evaluating the threat risk level for an unproven URL that lacks a history of normal behavior, a medium risk is the most appropriate categorization. This stems from the uncertainty surrounding the URL's intent and potential activities.

An unproven URL is not inherently safe, yet it is not definitively malicious either; it simply has not been assessed or monitored long enough to determine its legitimacy. Given that it lacks a track record, organizations would need to approach it cautiously, hence assigning it a medium risk level acknowledges the potential for harmful content or activities while also recognizing that not every unproven URL will pose an immediate threat.

Assigning a higher level of risk, such as high or critical, could be too severe without concrete evidence of malicious intent. These levels are typically reserved for URLs that are known to engage in harmful or suspicious activities. By categorizing it as medium, it encourages further scrutiny and investigation while indicating that there is some risk involved without jumping to conclusions about its nature. The idea is to balance vigilance with caution, ensuring that users remain aware of potential dangers without reacting excessively.