Hacking Drones
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hacking Drones
Another reason to keep humans in the cockpit
BBC News - Researchers use spoofing to 'hack' into a flying drone
But seriously, it must be harder to get into a military drone.....
BBC News - Researchers use spoofing to 'hack' into a flying drone
But seriously, it must be harder to get into a military drone.....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,035
Received 2,907 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Surely it could be designed to monitor say 6 recent GPS points at set periods and interegate it with the latest waypoint check it has, if they do not tally revert to either a fixed recovery point or heading.
Last edited by NutLoose; 29th Jun 2012 at 21:35.
Another reason to keep humans in the cockpit
Now that is interesting. As a pilot the only input interface I have with the computer systems on my aircraft is my finger. Pray, keep my interest and tell me what sort of virus I can infect my flight deck computers with (as opposed to simply transferring a piece of biology to the switch) and how often I can vector these virus.
Last edited by beardy; 30th Jun 2012 at 08:00.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DIGITAL ERROR
Finger trouble.........excessive digital interference.....
Seating room.......outsource to Philippines, so only need standing room.....
glf
Seating room.......outsource to Philippines, so only need standing room.....
glf
Last edited by Gulfstreamaviator; 30th Jun 2012 at 08:56.
Oh FFS BBC, when are you going to get some expertise in your reporting - first there was that God awful Thames Pageant coverage and now this pile of tripe!
The Predator and Reaper that they show in their article is not what the students used - these have LASER-INS blended with MIL-Standard GPS navigation solutions. Also, spoofing or jamming a more professional RPAS (like Reaper, Predator, Heron, Watchkeeper, etc...) Is much harder when flying at 20,000ft+ with better antennae like a closed radiation pattern antenna (CRPA) that is directional straight upwards towards the satellite - not pointing downwards towards the spoofing source. The gain on such antennae are about 30-40db more upwards than downward, so if you are trying to spoof/jam from behind you need a massive amount of power. Then you have the Free Space Loss to deal with - signal power attenuates very quickly over even short distances like 20,000ft (which is just over 3 miles). That is just a start, you then need consider other losses, airframe shielding, signals processing, the anti-jam/spoofing modules in Mil-GPS.
From the article, it looks like they have spoofed a cheap "unecrypted" GPS, that has no inertial back-up or blending, with cheap omni-directional antennae from Radio Shack. Well, whoopie doo!
LJ
The Predator and Reaper that they show in their article is not what the students used - these have LASER-INS blended with MIL-Standard GPS navigation solutions. Also, spoofing or jamming a more professional RPAS (like Reaper, Predator, Heron, Watchkeeper, etc...) Is much harder when flying at 20,000ft+ with better antennae like a closed radiation pattern antenna (CRPA) that is directional straight upwards towards the satellite - not pointing downwards towards the spoofing source. The gain on such antennae are about 30-40db more upwards than downward, so if you are trying to spoof/jam from behind you need a massive amount of power. Then you have the Free Space Loss to deal with - signal power attenuates very quickly over even short distances like 20,000ft (which is just over 3 miles). That is just a start, you then need consider other losses, airframe shielding, signals processing, the anti-jam/spoofing modules in Mil-GPS.
From the article, it looks like they have spoofed a cheap "unecrypted" GPS, that has no inertial back-up or blending, with cheap omni-directional antennae from Radio Shack. Well, whoopie doo!
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soooo in effect they've merely proved what lots of us have said for years, a human pilot will be required for forseable future thanks to the inherent vunerabilities of the technology available today.
Just in the same way as Airboos marketed their jets as uncrashable, or the DOD assuming that the nighthawk would remain undetectable for a lot longer than it did.
Edit..Leon, the point is, it can be done, it may be more of a challenge, military UAV's may not be the target, given the drive from certain aircraft manufacturers towards intitially remotely flown freight aircraft. Can you imagine Leon a commercial organisation, with a profit motive utilizing the top spec encription etc etc and top spec everything else? I can't, they will do the BARE minimum required of them via regulation..which means it will be less of a tough road to hack commercial traffic.
I just love the opinions of the technically blinded, they ALWAYS forget and have to relearn the lessons of history, if someone can think of it, then someone can unthink it.
Just in the same way as Airboos marketed their jets as uncrashable, or the DOD assuming that the nighthawk would remain undetectable for a lot longer than it did.
Edit..Leon, the point is, it can be done, it may be more of a challenge, military UAV's may not be the target, given the drive from certain aircraft manufacturers towards intitially remotely flown freight aircraft. Can you imagine Leon a commercial organisation, with a profit motive utilizing the top spec encription etc etc and top spec everything else? I can't, they will do the BARE minimum required of them via regulation..which means it will be less of a tough road to hack commercial traffic.
I just love the opinions of the technically blinded, they ALWAYS forget and have to relearn the lessons of history, if someone can think of it, then someone can unthink it.
Last edited by falconeasydriver; 30th Jun 2012 at 09:40.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that this was an exercise to show up possible vulnerabilities in the proposed low level use of commercial drones by the police to replace their helicopters, rather than in Mil systems.
No Falcon, the systems denied in these aircraft are exactly the same in manned aircraft and also a lot of the guided munitions (from bombs to ICBMs). As you rightly say, you can deny anything - manned or unmanned. It just depends on what lengths you need to go to.
The human occupant can be the very weakest link in aircraft - poor tolerance of G, need for heavy life support / escape systems and the dreaded "human factors" to name but a few. However, we are mostly in the "remotely piloted" game at the moment until technology can be proven - Artificial Intelligence is still a long way off, despite what people might have you believe! So human factors will be with us for some time yet.
The easiest way to "hack" any aircraft is with a hacksaw and partially saw through critical control infrastructure. It starts from here and goes upwards in complexity.
In this instance there are many things that you can do to unmanned to make it more resilient. More automatics, auto star-trackers for position awareness, reliance on high-end inertial nav units, better antennae, use of spread-spectrum and frequency agility, encryption, more power, digital dispersion (hiding your signals in other's spectrum) and many more.
Just because the enemy is getting smart, don't assume we aren't either...
LJ
The human occupant can be the very weakest link in aircraft - poor tolerance of G, need for heavy life support / escape systems and the dreaded "human factors" to name but a few. However, we are mostly in the "remotely piloted" game at the moment until technology can be proven - Artificial Intelligence is still a long way off, despite what people might have you believe! So human factors will be with us for some time yet.
The easiest way to "hack" any aircraft is with a hacksaw and partially saw through critical control infrastructure. It starts from here and goes upwards in complexity.
In this instance there are many things that you can do to unmanned to make it more resilient. More automatics, auto star-trackers for position awareness, reliance on high-end inertial nav units, better antennae, use of spread-spectrum and frequency agility, encryption, more power, digital dispersion (hiding your signals in other's spectrum) and many more.
Just because the enemy is getting smart, don't assume we aren't either...
LJ
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately the BBC's news staff tend to be leftie liberal apologist Guardian readers, so any chance they can get to snipe at the military they will take, if it means distorting the truth.
But are there not also "Human Factors" involved from the people on the ground directing the "All singing. all dancing" drone?
Just because you are sitting in an air conditioned ops room 10000 miles away does not mean you won't make an error.
Just because you are sitting in an air conditioned ops room 10000 miles away does not mean you won't make an error.
Yes, HF is a problem with current systems as I stated in my rambling post above ^^^^
However, we are mostly in the "remotely piloted" game at the moment until technology can be proven - Artificial Intelligence is still a long way off, despite what people might have you believe! So human factors will be with us for some time yet.
Unfortunately the BBC's news staff tend to be leftie liberal apologist Guardian readers, so any chance they can get to snipe at the military they will take, if it means distorting the truth.
What a rubbish state of affairs we have declined into - dumbing down, "spin" and sensational celebrity-itis... Hush my mouth, less I be called a Grumpy Old Man!
LJ
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep Leon, the systems are identical to those used in manned flight, not. And the man now rides in a Beech Baron behind and above to watch the unmanned, BRILLIANT!
Add all those extra high end nav goodies and where is your payload and power budget going?
What all the unmanned folks forget is the space between a manned pilots ears accounts for about 40% of the power and volume budget which is one reason why Gh lost out to a 60 yr old MANNED ac.
They have their place, just not on top of my house or yours and certainly not in manned airspace in their current stage of development.
Like I have said many times, the first time one goes astray and hits something/someone/somewhere then that will end the current craze for a very, very long time, all because of the rush to market.
And yes, there are ways to bring these puppies down intentionally, even with their "secure sat links" even at altitude.
Could become an olympic sport. Paint a bulls eye 500 metres diameter somewhere remote. 4 unmanneds orbiting at fl 30. Invite Iran, China, NK, Russia and 4 teenagers to compete. Award points for closest to the bull, my bet would be on one of the teenagers, given enough cheeto's and soda. No cheeto's, advantage to Romanians.
At least it would be more entertaining than curling!
Add all those extra high end nav goodies and where is your payload and power budget going?
What all the unmanned folks forget is the space between a manned pilots ears accounts for about 40% of the power and volume budget which is one reason why Gh lost out to a 60 yr old MANNED ac.
They have their place, just not on top of my house or yours and certainly not in manned airspace in their current stage of development.
Like I have said many times, the first time one goes astray and hits something/someone/somewhere then that will end the current craze for a very, very long time, all because of the rush to market.
And yes, there are ways to bring these puppies down intentionally, even with their "secure sat links" even at altitude.
Could become an olympic sport. Paint a bulls eye 500 metres diameter somewhere remote. 4 unmanneds orbiting at fl 30. Invite Iran, China, NK, Russia and 4 teenagers to compete. Award points for closest to the bull, my bet would be on one of the teenagers, given enough cheeto's and soda. No cheeto's, advantage to Romanians.
At least it would be more entertaining than curling!