OT security management relies on vulnerability advisories, CVSS scores and exploitation catalogs, on the assumption that these instruments describe the threat. This study tests that assumption through a scoping review of 73 studies, an audit of 3,966 CISA ICS/OT advisories (2010-2026; 12,441 CVEs; 14,878 CVE-vendor links) and a controlled simulation of a CSTR reactor. The review shows that the physical I/O surface, where a PLC can misreport the process state without violating the protocol or the logic, receives 5.5% of the field's attention, compared with 21.9% for the network and 16.4% for control logic. In the registry, data integrity accounts for 0.84% of CWE entries; only 2 of 3,776 ICSA advisories contain expressions compatible with process integrity, and none describes it. The 14 I/O techniques in ATT&CK for ICS represent 11.0% of the total, have lower detection coverage (64.3% versus 84.1%), and two are listed as "mitigation limited or not effective". The census is concentrated (Siemens: 26.2% of advisories and 47.3% of links; top five vendors: 57.7%; Gini 0.863); severity ranks exploitation but does not calibrate it (AUC 0.726; 97.4% of critical CVEs are not in KEV); 88.2% of exploited CVEs are IT stacks, and 66.7% of them were already in KEV before the OT advisory. In the simulation, a coordinated sensor and actuator attack produced a physical divergence of 14.8 K with no alarms and no trips. We conclude that structural blindness is a property of the observation architecture rather than of any particular detector: both the registry and the defense measure what the PLC reports, not the physical state of the process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
José Israel Nadal Vidal (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: