Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

allaboutcircuits.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#51

Post by euroderf »

derstander wrote: post #11
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #7

Spoofing radar signals isn't exactly new, and the ability to do it on the ground (so to speak) shouldn't be surprising. The military has been doing it for decades. Also, it doesn't take nearly the sophistication of the system demo'ed here -- a chaff canister released into traffic would, I imagine, play twenty kinds of havoc on any autonomous driving system that relied on radar.

> Spoofing radar signals isn't exactly new, and the ability to do it on the ground (so to speak) shouldn't be surprising. The military has been doing it for decades. People who are interested in finding out more can look up Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio_frequency_memory I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but the link's assertion that any of these techniques…

What are the frequencies here ? Can it all be done with SDR ?

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#53

Post by zeeed »

euroderf wrote: post #51
derstander wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spoofing radar signals isn't exactly new, and the ability to do it on the ground (so to speak) shouldn't be surprising. The military has been doing it for decades. People who are interested in finding out more can look up Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio_frequency_memory I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but the link's assertion that any of these techniques…

What are the frequencies here ? Can it all be done with SDR ?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16024.pdf

Yes, their POC uses SDR

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#54

Post by rangestransform »

smilespray wrote: post #24
iknowstuff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly why Tesla switched to vision only

Nah, that was cost.

IIRC from greentheonly’s twitter, there’s evidence of a brief experiment to do early fusion of vision and radar in the perception model

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#55

Post by GlenTheMachine »

littlestymaar wrote: post #38
xyzzy123 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much effort is warranted though. If people want to mess up traffic they can drop a concrete block off an overpass, run a heavy chain across the road, change signage, use tire shredders or do any number of antisocial things. Many of which are extremely cheap and not preventable. Probably the most novel factor would be that sensor disruption is more deniable than many other threats to drivers. But how much…

> Probably the most novel factor would be that sensor disruption is more deniable than many other threats to drivers. There's another aspect to it: sure you could disrupt traffic with all the means you cited, but you had to be there physically, and you'd run the very likely risk of being caught and beaten up by angry drivers. With invisible and electronic means like this, all it takes is to put a box with the jamming…

Actually you don't. A well known attack against trucking is to suspend a cinder block from an overpass, just high enough for the cars to miss it but not the trucks. People put them up in the middle of the night and are miles away before an incident.

Dropping caltrops on a secondary road at night would also work. Rigging a drone to drop chaff on a freeway, etc, would also get the perpetrator physically away from the action. Really, with some creativity, surprisingly crude attacks can shut down a road with minimal exposure of the perp.

A decade ago, the Beltway Sniper terrorized my neighborhood for two weeks. It turned out to be a teenage boy and a certifiably insane adult with some military training. A similar attack by someone who actually knew what they were doing and who wasn't addled would have been very, very difficult to catch. Much less if the attack were, say, from wooded roadsides that overlooked interstates.

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#56

Post by viraptor »

dosman33 wrote: post #44
viraptor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't need it, because I now keep my side mirrors set correctly I know where cars are beside me before the radar knows. It's not there to replace you looking. It's there as an extra information source in case you make a mistake when looking. Maybe you're lucky with the your car, but even with curved ends of mirrors in mine, there's still a blind spot where I would not see a bike on the passenger's side and the li…

I didn't say the radar was there to replace looking. All you do is set your mirrors correctly and then there's no more blind spot. That's the entire point of the radar system, to "fix" the alleged blind spot problem. The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place. > there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail. ...

> The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place.

You're literally responding to my post where I say this is not possible on my car. There's no orientation which doesn't leave a small blind spot. Not large enough for most cars, but definitely enough to hide a person/bike.

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#57

Post by dosman33 »

viraptor wrote: post #56
dosman33 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say the radar was there to replace looking. All you do is set your mirrors correctly and then there's no more blind spot. That's the entire point of the radar system, to "fix" the alleged blind spot problem. The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place. > there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail. ...

> The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place. You're literally responding to my post where I say this is not possible on my car. There's no orientation which doesn't leave a small blind spot. Not large enough for most cars, but definitely enough to hide a person/bike.

Have an upvote, I am dumb.

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#58

Post by derstander »

euroderf wrote: post #51
derstander wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spoofing radar signals isn't exactly new, and the ability to do it on the ground (so to speak) shouldn't be surprising. The military has been doing it for decades. People who are interested in finding out more can look up Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio_frequency_memory I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but the link's assertion that any of these techniques…

What are the frequencies here ? Can it all be done with SDR ?

As the sibling comment from zeeed mentioned, yes — in this case.

More generally maybe but not always. If you wanted to use a DRFM jammer to insert false targets in an imaging radar, the bandwidths required may be a challenge.

There are commercial SAR satellite operators that you (for some definition of you — I personally couldn’t afford it) can buy from that sell imagery that’s got a resolution of 0.5 meters per pixel. That would require a bandwidth of about 300MHz. I haven’t looked at the SDR landscape in awhile but when I did that was sort of sporty — by that I mean >300 complex megasamples a second (for Nyquist, not including any oversampling).

And that would be after basebanding in analog before sampling to digital.

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#59

Post by zikduruqe »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #49
zikduruqe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cyclist, I hate peeking over my left shoulder and seeing two red lights at a distance behind me, then all the sudden some Jeep (or r/Heep) blasts by me. Oh, that Jeep was running red lights on the front. I thought that vehicle was heading away from me.

Red lights on the front? Is that a common thing, I've never heard of it. Surely it's illegal?

Red, green, blue, etc...

Every state has laws that when a vehicle is in forward motion on a road, that the only permissible colored lights are white and amber. Yes illegal.

Re: MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'

#60

Post by iknowstuff »

p_l wrote: post #37
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why include a (much more expensive) FSD computer in every Tesla then, if it was just a cost-saving measure and radar is actually needed for self-driving? FSD works better today with vision only than any other solution with vison+radar.

The computer was needed anyway to get sensor fusion and reasoning about environment around, so it's not something that was "added" or "more expensive". Also, their original solution did sensor fusion with LIDAR, but the vendor find out and blew a gasket - because the LIDAR sensors weren't designed for safety-critical operation and to my understanding became a potential liability for the maker if they continued to sup…

Completely incorrect and made up.
Post reply on HN