MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416417505 · doi:10.1080/23738871.2025.2584828

Death by a thousand bytes? Assessing the strategic effects of wiper attacks

2025· article· en· W4416417505 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cyber Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Terrorism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wipers, pieces of malware specifically designed to destroy data on a computer system, have become an increasingly significant tool of cyberwarfare. Yet, much uncertainty remains with regard to their strategic effectiveness. What exact effects do wiper attacks produce in the ‘real world’? Offering a tentative model for impact assessment, we conduct an in-depth analysis of six well-documented cases of wiper attacks. We demonstrate that wipers do inflict serious damage to information systems and can generate significant operational disruptions within targeted entities, but generally fail to produce systemic shocks or enduring outcomes. The study then highlights several factors that help explain why organisations prove surprisingly resilient when targeted by a wiper, thus reducing such attacks’ strategic magnitude. We conclude by emphasising alternative ways in which wipers may be used by nation states in the future, potentially to greater effect.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it