Cited by 8Information and Cyber SecuritySmart Grid Security and ResilienceNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safety-security convergence: Automation of IEC 62443-3-2

Open access
Da Silva, Mike, Mocanu, Stéphane, Puys, Maxime, Thevenon, Pierre-Henri·2025·Computers & Security

Abstract

Industrial Control Systems (ICS) are designed to provide a service, such as power generation or water treatment , while protecting people, assets, and the environment against hazard. However, ICS now integrate Information Technology (IT) and are interconnected with the outside world such as the Internet, thereby exposing their infrastructures to cyberattacks. Cyberattacks have thus become new threats for industrial system operations and, more specifically, for their safety. To address the issue, this paper presents a comprehensive cybersecurity risk assessment for the safety of ICS. We apply our method to automate industrial cybersecurity risk assessment as specified in the recent (2020) IEC 62443-3-2 standard, which is widely used in the industrial cybersecurity domain. By automating parts of these risk assessment processes , we can reduce the error-prone manual efforts and increase the consistency of risk assessment. More specifically, the proposed risk assessment comprises three parts which, respectively: (1) identify the specific vulnerabilities of industrial control systems, (2) determine the attack scenarios that compromise the safety of the system and (3) assess whether the attack scenarios are tolerable by the organization’s policy. In the first part, we automated the entire threat modeling process of Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool by developing an automatable method for building the system model, in the form of a data flow diagram , from a standard XML file called PLCOpen. This automation of the Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool process enables us to automate vulnerability identification for industrial control systems. In the second part, we enhance a previous work that generates theoretical safety-compromising attack scenarios by building a complete attack scenario from system vulnerabilities to safety compromise. Finally, in the third part, we rank the attack scenarios using a specific risk matrix in order to determine which scenarios exceed the risk tolerable by the organization and therefore require additional controls.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cose.2025.104477

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Contemporary research demonstrates that cyberattack scenarios must be assessed according to their potential effects on industrial operations rather than solely according to traditional information-security criteria.

    “Contemporary research on industrial control systems further demonstrates the growing convergence between cybersecurity and process safety, emphasizing that cyberattack scenarios must be assessed according to their potential effects on industrial operations rather than solely according to traditional information-security criteria (Da Silva et al., 2025).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Casey, 2007, Threat agent library helps identify information security risks, Intel White Pap., 2
  2. Cheh, 2018, Determining tolerable attack surfaces that preserves safety of cyber-physical systems, 2018 IEEE 23rd Pac. Rim Int. Symp. Dependable Comput., 10.1109/PRDC.2018.00023 · DOI
  3. Da Silva, 2023, PLC Logic-Based Cybersecurity Risks Identification for ICS, Proc. the 18th Int. Conf. on Availab., Reliab. Secur.
  4. Da Silva, 2023, Automated ICS template for STRIDE Microsoft threat modeling tool, Proc. the 18th Int. Conf. on Availab., Reliab. Secur.
  5. Downs, 1993, A plant-wide industrial process control problem, Comput. Chem. Eng., 17, 245, 10.1016/0098-1354(93)80018-I · DOI · Paper page
  6. Eckhart, 2022, Automated security risk identification using AutomationML-based engineering data, IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., 19, 1655, 10.1109/TDSC.2020.3033150 · DOI
  7. Ehrlich, 2023, Determining the target security level for Automated Security Risk Assessments, 2023 IEEE 21st Int. Conf. Ind. Informatics
  8. Ehrlich, 2023, Evaluation concept for prototypical implementation towards Automated Security Risk Assessments, IEEE 28th Int. Conf. Emerg. Technol. Fact. Autom.
  9. Fockel, 2019, Designing and integrating IEC 62443 compliant threat analysis, Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci.
  10. Khaled, 2020, Assessing the severity of smart attacks in industrial cyber-physical systems, ACM Trans. Cyber- Phys. Syst.
  11. Mesli-Kesraoui, 2016, Formal and joint verification of control programs and supervision interfaces for socio-technical systems components, ( Int. Fed. Autom. Control.
  12. Provost, 2011, Translating Grafcet specifications into Mealy machines for conformance test purposes, Control Eng. Pract., 10.1016/j.conengprac.2010.10.001 · DOI
  13. Puys, 2018, Generation of applicative attacks scenarios against industrial systems, Found. Pr. Secur., 10.1007/978-3-319-75650-9_9 · DOI
  14. Rocchetto, 2017, Towards formal security analysis of industrial control systems, Proc. the 2017 ACM Asia Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur.
  15. Son, 2023, Development of the framework for quantitative cyber risk assessment in nuclear facilities, Nucl. Eng. Technol., 55, 2034, 10.1016/j.net.2023.03.023 · DOI
  16. Song, 2012, A cyber security risk assessment for the design of I&C systems in nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Technol., 10
  17. Turuani, 2006, The CL-ATSE protocol analyser, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., 10.1007/11805618_21 · DOI
  18. Zhu, 2018, Extended multilevel flow model-based dynamic risk assessment for cybersecurity protection in industrial production systems, Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Networks, 14

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Da Silva, M., Mocanu, S., Puys, M., & Thevenon, P.-H.
Affiliations
  • Institut polytechnique de Grenoble (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR)
Venue
Computers & Security
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-09
Volume
156
Pages
104477
ISSN
0167-4048 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409545849
Cited by
8
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 1
FWCI
4.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers & Security (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
French National Research Agency (ANR-10-AIRT-05)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Smart Grid Security and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
Keywords
industrial control systems, industrial cybersecurity, cybersecurity risk assessment, threat modeling, PLCopen, data flow diagram, vulnerability detection, attack scenario generation, risk matrix, risk tolerability, automation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review