The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War
Abstract
The discovery in June 2010 that a cyber worm dubbed ‘Stuxnet’ had struck the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz suggested that, for cyber war, the future is now. Yet more important is the political and strategic context in which new cyber threats are emerging, and the effects the worm has generated in this respect. Perhaps most striking is the confluence between cyber crime and state action. States are capitalising on technology whose development is driven by cyber crime, and perhaps outsourcing cyber attacks to non-attributable third parties, including criminal organisations. Cyber offers great potential for striking at enemies with less risk than using traditional military means. It is unclear how much the Stuxnet program cost, but it was almost certainly less than the cost of single fighter-bomber. Yet if damage from cyber attacks can be quickly repaired, careful strategic thought is required in comparing the cost and benefits of cyber versus traditional military attack. One important benefit of cyber attack may be its greater opportunity to achieve goals such as retarding the Iranian nuclear programme without causing the loss of life or injury to innocent civilians that air strikes would seem more likely to inflict. Nevertheless, cyber attacks do carry a risk of collateral damage, with a risk of political blowback if the attacking parties are identified. Difficulty in identifying a cyber attacker presents multiple headaches for responding. A key strategic risk in cyber attack, finally, lies in potential escalatory responses. Strategies for using cyber weapons like Stuxnet need to take into account that adversaries may attempt to turn them back against us.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Attack Detection and Identification in Cyber-Physical Systems
Pasqualetti, F., Dorfler, F., & Bullo, F. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2013.2266831 · Cited by 2,109
A survey SCADA of and critical infrastructure incidents
Miller, B., & Rowe, D. (2012) · Proceedings of the 1st Annual conference on Research in information technology · doi:10.1145/2380790.2380805 · Cited by 336
Cyber-Security Challenges in Aviation Industry: A Review of Current and Future Trends
Ukwandu, E., Ben-Farah, M. A., Hindy, H., Bures, M., Atkinson, R., Tachtatzis, C., Andonovic, I., & Bellekens, X. (2022) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13030146 · Cited by 189
The Distinct Wrong of Deepfakes
de Ruiter, A. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00459-2 · Cited by 175
Advanced Intrusion Detection Combining Signature-Based and Behavior-Based Detection Methods
Kwon, H.-Y., Kim, T., & Lee, M.-K. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11060867 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- Farwell, J. P., & Rohozinski, R.
- Venue
- Survival
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-01-28
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-40
- ISSN
- 0039-6338 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2699
- OpenAlex
- W1972757409
- Cited by
- 945
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 171.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00396338.2011.555586
- The paper
- Farwell, J. P., & Rohozinski, R. (2011). Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War. Survival. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2011.555586
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.