The article examines the evolution of Russian Internet terminology in the field of cybersecurity and the degree of its alignment with international standards and industry practices. The aim is to identify the trajectories of borrowing, adaptation, and normalization of key concepts, as well as to determine the factors influencing the harmonization of the conceptual framework. The empirical base comprises an interdisciplinary corpus of texts from the late 1990s to the present, including legal and doctrinal documents, scholarly publications, conference materials, media, and professional online platforms. The study employs discourse and conceptual analysis, comparative-historical comparison with the English-language tradition, and a typology of terminology formation strategies. It is shown that the early stage was characterized by terminological import and spontaneous transliteration (phishing, firewall), whereas later phases demonstrate the systematization and differentiation of the notions of information security and cybersecurity, an increasing role of calquing (inter-network screen, data leak), and semantic adaptation (attack, vulnerability). The analysis reveals the heterogeneity of harmonization: for Incident Response, there is a high degree of equivalence, while Cybersecurity/Information Security and Threat Intelligence/Cyber Intelligence diverge due to differences in legal definitions and sociocultural connotations. The discussion highlights the shifting focus of security from narrowly technical aspects to a multi-level system encompassing data, the individual, infrastructures, and state sovereignty, as well as the distribution of responsibility among the state, business, the expert community, and users (digital hygiene). The conclusion notes the formation of a hybrid lexicon that combines Anglicisms, successful calques, and adapted Russian words. Further normalization depends on balancing integration into global protocols (ISO/NIST) with internal regulatory frameworks (GOST, requirements of national agencies), as well as on the institutionalization of terms in education and law enforcement. The practical significance lies in the proposed typology of strategies and criteria for assessing equivalence, which are applicable for experts, standardizers, and educational program developers.