Continue your mission
Digital twins are virtual replicas of physical systems continuously updated with real-world data. In cybersecurity, they function simultaneously as high-value attack targets, safe testing environments for security teams, and potential attack vectors if manipulated by adversaries.
# Digital Twins and Cybersecurity
A digital twin is a virtual model of a physical object, system, or process that is continuously synchronized with its real-world counterpart through live sensor data, telemetry, and operational feeds. The concept originated in aerospace and manufacturing: NASA engineers used digital twin principles for the Apollo program, modeling spacecraft systems to simulate conditions without risking the physical asset. GE Aviation formalized the term in the 2000s, building digital twins of turbine engines to predict maintenance needs before mechanical failure occurred.
The defining characteristic of a true digital twin is bidirectional data exchange. The physical system sends continuous state data to the virtual model, and the virtual model can be used to simulate interventions, test configurations, or project failure scenarios. This is distinct from a static simulation or a design model, which represents a system at a fixed point in time without live data synchronization.
From a cybersecurity perspective, digital twins introduce a three-dimensional security problem: the twin is simultaneously a target to be protected, a tool that security teams can leverage, and a potential attack vector that adversaries can exploit. Understanding all three dimensions is essential for any organization operating digital twin infrastructure.
A digital twin architecture typically comprises four components: the physical asset, the data ingestion layer, the virtual model, and the analytics and decision layer.
The physical asset generates state data through embedded sensors, control system logs, and operational telemetry. In an industrial plant, this might include temperature readings from hundreds of sensors, vibration data from rotating machinery, flow rates through process lines, and control commands issued by the SCADA system. In a smart building, it might include occupancy sensors, HVAC system states, power consumption at the circuit level, and access control events.
The data ingestion layer collects this raw data and streams it into the virtual model. This layer typically uses industrial IoT protocols (MQTT, OPC-UA, Modbus over TCP) combined with cloud ingestion pipelines. The ingestion layer is where data integrity is most vulnerable: if sensor data is tampered with before it reaches the model, the twin's accuracy is compromised without the physical system being touched.
The virtual model itself is a software representation of the physical asset, running in a compute environment (often cloud-hosted, increasingly edge-hosted for latency reasons). The model uses the incoming data to maintain a current-state representation and can run simulations against it. Siemens MindSphere, Bentley Systems iTwin, and ANSYS Twin Builder are prominent commercial platforms. Singapore's Virtual Singapore project built a city-scale digital twin incorporating building information models, real-time sensor data from urban infrastructure, and population mobility data.
The analytics and decision layer is where operators and automated systems interact with the twin. Operators use dashboards to monitor system state, run what-if scenarios, and plan maintenance. Automated systems may use the twin's outputs to make operational decisions, creating a feedback loop between the virtual model and real-world control systems.
Digital twins are proliferating across critical infrastructure sectors. Power utilities use them to model grid stability and simulate the impact of outages before grid reconfigurations are made. Water treatment facilities model chemical dosing and flow dynamics. Manufacturing plants model production lines to optimize throughput and predict equipment failures. Smart cities model traffic systems to reduce congestion. The common thread is that these twins contain detailed, current-state intelligence about the physical systems they model.
For security practitioners, the implications are significant in three directions.
First, the twin as a target: the digital twin contains a continuously updated operational picture of the physical system. An adversary who compromises the twin gains access to process configurations, operational history, equipment parameters, and system vulnerabilities without ever touching the physical network. For a power plant, this intelligence could inform a physical or cyber attack against the facility itself. The twin is, in effect, a comprehensive intelligence dossier on its physical counterpart.
Second, the twin as a security testing environment: OT and ICS environments have historically been resistant to active security testing because the physical consequences of a test gone wrong can include equipment damage, production shutdowns, or safety incidents. A digital twin changes this calculus. Security teams can run adversarial simulations against the twin, testing how the system responds to injected anomalies or simulated attack sequences without risking the physical plant. This is particularly valuable for red team exercises in environments where direct testing of the physical system would be unacceptable.
Third, the twin as an attack vector: if an adversary can manipulate the data feeding the twin, they can deceive operators making decisions based on twin outputs. This is a form of sensor spoofing at the model level. If a digital twin shows normal pressure readings while physical sensors are actually reporting dangerous conditions, an operator relying on the twin view may fail to respond to a developing physical incident. The attack does not require touching the physical system or the control network, only the data pipeline feeding the model.
Securing a digital twin requires addressing its attack surface across three layers: the data pipeline, the model environment, and the analytics interface.
Data integrity is the foundational concern. Sensor data entering the twin should be authenticated at the source where possible (cryptographically signed telemetry from industrial sensors is increasingly feasible with modern edge hardware). Anomaly detection should be applied to ingestion pipelines to flag statistical deviations that could indicate data tampering. Time-series integrity monitoring, comparing current sensor readings against historical baselines and physical models of what the system should be doing, can detect injected false data.
Network isolation between the twin environment and the physical OT network is a critical architectural control. The data flow from the physical system to the twin should be unidirectional where possible, implemented via data diodes or unidirectional security gateways. This prevents the twin environment, which may be cloud-hosted and therefore more exposed, from serving as a pivot point into the OT network.
Authentication and access control for the twin's analytics interface must be as rigorous as access control for the physical control system. Role-based access, multi-factor authentication, and session logging are baseline requirements. Because the twin provides a comprehensive intelligence view of the physical system, unauthorized access to the twin should be treated with the same severity as unauthorized access to the control system itself.
Software supply chain security applies to the twin's underlying platform. Commercial digital twin platforms represent complex software with extensive third-party dependencies. Vulnerabilities in the platform software can expose the twin and, through it, the intelligence it contains about the physical system. Patch management for twin platforms should follow the same urgency and rigor as patch management for production systems.
Digital twins sit at the intersection of three PDM domains. Within SPH, the Autonomous Posture Command (APC) methodology must account for twin infrastructure as part of the organization's security posture. This means including twin platforms in vulnerability scanning scope, enforcing configuration standards for twin environments, and monitoring twin access logs for anomalous activity. An organization that maintains rigorous posture hygiene on its IT systems but leaves its digital twin environment unmanaged has a significant blind spot.
Within TID, the Predictive Defense Intelligence (PDI) methodology applies to monitoring for twin manipulation attempts. Because the twin's data pipeline spans from edge sensors through potentially multiple cloud services, threat detection must cover that full chain. Behavioral analytics on data ingestion pipelines, monitoring for anomalous query patterns against the twin's analytics interface, and correlation of twin access events with physical system anomalies are all within scope for a mature TID program.
Within DPS, the Sovereign Data Protocol (SDP) applies directly to the twin's data governance model. The twin aggregates highly sensitive operational intelligence, often continuously and in real time. Data residency requirements, encryption at rest and in transit, retention policies, and access logging are all DPS controls that must be applied to twin infrastructure. For regulated industries, the twin's data may be subject to sector-specific requirements (NERC CIP for energy utilities, NIST SP 800-82 guidance for ICS environments generally).
For CDA clients operating industrial or critical infrastructure environments, digital twin security assessments are an increasingly common component of full-domain engagements. The twin represents a new and often underscoped attack surface in environments where the physical system itself may be well-hardened.
CDA Theater missions that address topics covered in this article.
Cryptographic technique that encrypts data while preserving its original format and length, enabling protection without breaking legacy system compatibility.
Guide to HTTP/2 security covering binary framing, HPACK compression attacks, rapid reset vulnerability, stream multiplexing risks, and mitigation strategies.
Explanation of Certificate Transparency framework, covering log servers, Signed Certificate Timestamps, monitoring capabilities, and detection of fraudulent certificates.
Written by Evan Morgan
Found an issue? Help improve this article.