[Noisebridge-discuss] Iran hacked US drone by spoofing GPS, jamming control signals

Joshua Carpoff joshua at carpoff.net
Wed Dec 21 21:39:45 UTC 2011


> It's also possible to destroy just the communications equipment  
> without blowing up the entire plane.

Nothing valuable in the hardware on the plane; its all pretty basic
stuff, they didn't even bother with shielding the exhaust signature of
the engine, there certainly isn't anything very sophisticated on this
aircraft.

The specific formulation of radar absorbent paint we used on that drone
(telling them what radar frequencies will reflect best) is what everyone
is interested in. Destroying that destroys what their after. Perhaps
just make future formulations flammable and add "set the skin on fire"
:) as a point on the decision tree under the right conditions?

Hmmm, could make for a spectacular fireball in the sky at nighttime...

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 13:10, Gopiballava Flaherty wrote:
> Remember what anti-replay protection on the nav data means: you are
> receiving data that appears valid except for some specific issues with
> it. You will then decide to do something like blow up something
> expensive, or land using inaccurate sensors, etc. 
> 
> You'd better be sure the data is actually invalid / messed with before
> discarding valid-ish data...
> 
> Don't forget the CYA aspect. "I know we lost a perfectly functional
> drone, but just imagine if the Iranians got one. It's worth losing a few
> to higher than expected multi-path looking like replay of old data..."
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> gopi at iPhone
> 
> 
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 12:46, Joshua Juran <jjuran at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Joshua Carpoff wrote:
> > 
> >> The attack vector was on the Nav data. Making this more robust (or  
> >> less critical) is where the improvement is needed. One out-of-the  
> >> box idea might be to have some method of having the aircraft be  
> >> able to self-destruct in the air with no heavy objects (engine  
> >> block) remaining to fall to earth and hit something unintended?
> > 
> > Or have it self-destruct after landing, unless an authenticated  
> > override has been received.  For maximum lulz, use a proximity sensor.
> > 
> > It's also possible to destroy just the communications equipment  
> > without blowing up the entire plane.
> > 
> > Josh
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list