The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Harnessing Digital Twin Security Simulations for systematic Cyber Threat Intelligence
Abstract
Understanding cybersecurity threats, attacks, and incidents is crucial for organizations to perform preventive or re-active measures. Nevertheless, detailed Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) is reluctantly shared. Digital twins, the virtual counterparts of real-world assets, offer security simulation capabilities. The simulation of attack scenarios on industrial control systems (ICS) with digital twins yields valuable threat information. In our work, we outline the systematic steps towards a structured threat report starting with digital twin security simulations: We first present the course of action and define formal requirements for framework deployment. We then conduct an attack simulation with a prototypical digital twin application to evaluate our frame-work. Using the STIX2.1 standard, we assist CTI generation by providing utility tools guiding through the process steps. Our experimental results show that a STIX2.1 CTI report can be systematically constructed with the opportunity to customize according to the use case at hand. Adding digital twin security simulations to the list of CTI sources can provide shareable CTI and help organizations improve their security posture.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The interplay of digital twins and cyber deception [128] suggests an emerging architecture in which a digital twin of the production IoT environment serves both as a high-fidelity decoy and as a simulation testbed for response playbooks [138,139].”
From Agentic AI and Large Language Models for Autonomous IoT Cybersecurity: A Systematic Survey, Taxonomy, and Research Roadmap (2026) · cites this paper as [139]
Citations
Cites
A review of cyber security risk assessment methods for SCADA systems
Cherdantseva, Y., Burnap, P., Blyth, A., Eden, P., Jones, K., Soulsby, H., & Stoddart, K. (2016) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.09.009 · Cited by 606
Current cyber-defense trends in industrial control systems
Rubio, J. E., Alcaraz, C., Roman, R., & Lopez, J. (2019) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2019.06.015 · Cited by 113
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- 10.1007/s12599-019-00624-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.115 · DOI
- grieves, 2017, Digital Twin Mitigating Unpredictable Undesirable Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems[J], 85
- brown, 2019, The Evolution of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) 2019 SANS CTI Survey
- 10.1016/j.cose.2017.10.009 · DOI
- 2020, OASIS Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC, Stix™ version 2 1 Com-mittee specification 0 1
- 10.1007/s10207-020-00490-y · DOI
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3045514 · DOI
- 10.1109/COMST.2021.3117338 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.198 · DOI · Paper page
- eckhart, 2019, Digital Twins for Cyber-Physical Systems Security State of the Art and Outlook, 383
- 10.1145/2808705.2808715 · DOI
- 10.1109/COMPSAC51774.2021.00174 · DOI
- 10.1145/3198458.3198464 · DOI
- 10.1109/MSEC.2019.2961650 · DOI
- 10.1145/3407023.3407039 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-71440-0_1 · DOI
- boschert, 2018, Next Generation Digital Twin, Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, 209
- 10.1016/j.cose.2017.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/UEMCON.2018.8796822 · DOI
- 10.1145/3319535.3363217 · DOI
- 10.1145/2976749.2978315 · DOI
- 10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9006328 · DOI
- kao, 2018, The dynamic analysis of wannacry ransomware, Int Conf on Advanced Communication Tech (ICACT), 159
- legoy, 2020, Automated retrieval of ATT&CK tactics and techniques for cyber threat reports, ArXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nageshwaran, V., & Ezekiel, S. (2026) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics15122740 · Cited by 4
“The interplay of digital twins and cyber deception [128] suggests an emerging architecture in which a digital twin of the production IoT environment serves both as a high-fidelity decoy and as a simulation testbed for response playbooks [138,139].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Dietz, M., Schlette, D., & Pernul, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Regensburg (DE)
- University of Regensburg,Chair of Information Systems,Germany
- Venue
- 2022 IEEE 46th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2022-06
- Pages
- 789-797
- ISSN
- 0730-3157 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4298126988
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 3.35
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) (publishedVersion)
- University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Federal Ministry of Education and Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Smart Grid Security and Resilience
- Keywords
- digital twin, cyber threat intelligence, security simulation, attack simulation, industrial control systems, security posture
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