Live data from Hacker News

Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

nakedsecurity.sophos.com

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#11

I know the title here is the same as the article, but why the heck did sophos choose "Texas college" for the something done by the University of Texas? I assumed from the title it was done by some small school somewhere in Texas, not UT.

Amen! I had exactly the same reaction. (Disclosure: I'm an alumnus, twice.)

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#12
post #6

There are a few good comments[1] on the article page that point out that Military drones use an encrypted GPS channel that isn't susceptible to this specific attack. A much more sophisticated attack would have to be used to take over a military drone. [1]: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/02/drone-hackedwith-...

This scenario would also assumes that no human is in the loop and the drone is running on auto pilot. The "hack" was averted by the drone pilot switching the drone to manual in the exercise in question. I am not sure what military drones even have to do with this test.

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#13
Egads, the news coverage of this is horrible fear mongering.

The researchers from UT built a system to protect against GPS spoofing. In order to prove that their protection system works, they had to demonstrate that GPS spoofing is feasible. Without exception, every news item on this only mentions the spoofing part, and not the protection part.

Military unmanned systems use encrypted GPS that is not vulnerable to the attack demonstrated.

Its possible to make a vehicle fly erratically, or even cause it to crash by spoofing GPS. But to take control requires a lot more than what was demonstrated. An error of 1us in the spoofed signal corresponds to 1000ft -- that's why the actual descriptions of the vehicle say 'banked hard' or 'veered' off course.

GPS jamming is so much easier than spoofing and results in the same thing.

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#14
post #4

Each one of these could be a potential missile used against us. This seems to be exaggerated. Wouldn't you need a drone on American soil, already right next to the target, in order to crash it by sending falsified GPS coordinates?

Did you read the part of the article that said "The demonstration of the near-disaster, led by Professor Todd Humphreys and his team at the UTA's Radionavigation Laboratory, points to a "gaping hole" in the US's plan to open US airspace to thousands of drones," so presumably there's an existing plan to use drones in US airspace. One would imagine they would be most useful over densely populated areas.

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#15
I believe its too late. Too much money has been already spent by lobbyst and all third parties dying to make trillions off of this scam (vide Chertoff and his radiation scanners: first it was just airports (and I somehow agree) with a reasoning that 300 people aboard a plane can be killed by one idiot with a bomb and when you fly a plane you are in one guy's hands (pilot), but now they are fully rolling it into stadiums, train stations, buses, soon schools universities and all public entities to join, including libraries (no explanation why -- just simple so that bearded guy hiding in Afghanistan mountains won't get you). Chertoff will make ten thousands-fold on his initial investment; brilliant business anywhere outside US would be called illegal and conflict of interest).

I bet you DHS will turn this horrible news into a good PR, something like "we noticed they could take over our drone, but you see if we get additional 10 billion in funding, we could use encryption over GPS and then all our drones will be safe again".

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#16
post #5
post #4

Each one of these could be a potential missile used against us. This seems to be exaggerated. Wouldn't you need a drone on American soil, already right next to the target, in order to crash it by sending falsified GPS coordinates?

Or against US soldiers.

You would still need a strong signal near the target, which is more difficult than setting up a drone-trap like Iran seems to have done.

Is it possible to somehow sign GPS coordinates? (Perhaps sync an internal clock at each mission's start, and check a time-based signature?)

If not, are there practical challenges to integrating the output of a drone's engine and calculating the path travelled, instead of naively believing satellite coordinates?

Actually, wind must make that difficult. For a car, you can attach a magnet to each wheel and count the surges as it passes a sensor on each rotation, to give you an idea of where you are. Due to the external forces on a drone, you would probably want to measure forces with an accelerometer/gyroscope, not engine output.)

What are the challenges involved in such? Is internal-location tracking even feasible?

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#17

I know the title here is the same as the article, but why the heck did sophos choose "Texas college" for the something done by the University of Texas? I assumed from the title it was done by some small school somewhere in Texas, not UT.

Texas College is actually a low-quality college in my town. I was very, very confused for a few seconds.

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#18

Egads, the news coverage of this is horrible fear mongering. The researchers from UT built a system to protect against GPS spoofing. In order to prove that their protection system works, they had to demonstrate that GPS spoofing is feasible. Without exception, every news item on this only mentions the spoofing part, and not the protection part. Military unmanned systems use encrypted GPS that is not vulnerable to the…

> GPS jamming is so much easier than spoofing and results in the same thing.

Does it? Can't the drone tell that the GPS input that it's getting is inconsistent and fall back to flying home using dead reckoning?

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#19

Egads, the news coverage of this is horrible fear mongering. The researchers from UT built a system to protect against GPS spoofing. In order to prove that their protection system works, they had to demonstrate that GPS spoofing is feasible. Without exception, every news item on this only mentions the spoofing part, and not the protection part. Military unmanned systems use encrypted GPS that is not vulnerable to the…

> GPS jamming is so much easier than spoofing and results in the same thing. Does it? Can't the drone tell that the GPS input that it's getting is inconsistent and fall back to flying home using dead reckoning?

Technically, yes it is possible for an autopilot to use dead reckoning for navigation without GPS at all. (we didn't use GPS to navigate to the moon, right?) However, all commercial autopilots that I know of rely on GPS to some degree. The difference is the use of low-cost gyros and accelerometers. They are good enough when augmented with GPS, but not good enough all alone.

Edit: the low-cost sensors can be augmented with sensors other than GPS too, like vision processing. This has been demonstrated but is not yet in widespread usage. I expect to see this become more common due to demonstrated vulnerabilities in GPS.

Re: Drone hijacked by UT hackers with $1,000 spoofer

#20
post #8

I know the title here is the same as the article, but why the heck did sophos choose "Texas college" for the something done by the University of Texas? I assumed from the title it was done by some small school somewhere in Texas, not UT.

There is only one school in texas worth knowing about.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN