Hackers are taking over planes’ GPS — experts are lost on how to fix it

[derg]

If you aren’t updating comsec you don’t really have the code.

One of the first mitigations we make selling things like JDAM kits to foreign nations is the ability to simply not give them the code to use them.

All GPS signal is capable of reaching the level of precision accuracy because it’s just physics. We just adjust the dial the day we need it to not work for those of us in the cool kid club.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, I just didn't know what actually changed when my circle went from 10 meters to, well, much smaller.

I should try to pull my old term paper up. It went through the science, the math, physics, ephimerous error, time dilation/light delay factors.

I used to be smart. Now I just drink and watch YouTube.

 

[MikeD]

Yeah, I just didn't know what actually changed when my circle went from 10 meters to, well, much smaller.

I should try to pull my old term paper up. It went through the science, the math, physics, ephimerous error, time dilation/light delay factors.

I used to be smart. Now I just drink and watch YouTube.

Who was the professor for the Flight Controls and Systems 400 level class. Doug somebody, can’t remember the last name. With the beard.

 

[derg]

Who was the professor for the Flight Controls and Systems 400 level class. Doug somebody, can’t remember the last name. With the beard.

Was that "Parts and Pieces?" I think I had Padraig Houlahan for that. But the GPS term paper (and lecture presentation) was Global Nav with Mike Corradi.

 

[trafficinsight]

The issue is more that we've compressed airspace. When those Clippers were running around there wasn't any other traffic out there for them to hit, and the downsides of wandering 50 miles off course didn't (generally) involve getting shot down.

They also threw them into the ocean a lot... so there's that.

 

[MikeD]

Was that "Parts and Pieces?" I think I had Padraig Houlahan for that. But the GPS term paper (and lecture presentation) was Global Nav with Mike Corradi.

Doug Miller. He had the difficult class on that subject.

Mike Corradi. RIP

 

[Lawman]

Yeah, I just didn't know what actually changed when my circle went from 10 meters to, well, much smaller.

I should try to pull my old term paper up. It went through the science, the math, physics, ephimerous error, time dilation/light delay factors.

I used to be smart. Now I just drink and watch YouTube.

It’s really just a matter of how often we let you update cycle and how many decimals we let you round to in the signal.

Just for an example:

If we allow a range/bearing update off a single satellite every second on a 500 knot aircraft you’re talking about a ~260 meter ambiguity in space. So we let you see 5 satellites and the comparison of ellipsoids equates to a tighter circle but your still talking about dozens of meters in the best of mean averages. And that’s before we get into the mechanics of how the satellites know where it is to baseline the range/bearing as it’s traveling in space.

If I let you see the those updates at .1 seconds suddenly you’re at ~26 meters per ellipsoid. And when you start mixing those to establish a mean average you’re suddenly at single digit meter accuracy (ie .04 on your INU alignment). Now you can about using that data to target a bomb or land with precision within limits since it’s really the same principle. Make a thing go from point A to arrive to point B within a given level of divergence.

The day we need to, we will simply stop allowing anybody outside the clubhouse to see the decimals…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

It’s really just a matter of how often we let you update cycle and how many decimals we let you round to in the signal.

Just for an example:

If we allow a range/bearing update off a single satellite every second on a 500 knot aircraft you’re talking about a ~260 meter ambiguity in space. So we let you see 5 satellites and the comparison of ellipsoids equates to a tighter circle but your still talking about dozens of meters in the best of mean averages. And that’s before we get into the mechanics of how the satellites know where it is to baseline the range/bearing as it’s traveling in space.

If I let you see the those updates at .1 seconds suddenly you’re at ~26 meters per ellipsoid. And when you start mixing those to establish a mean average you’re suddenly at single digit meter accuracy (ie .04 on your INU alignment). Now you can about using that data to target a bomb or land with precision within limits since it’s really the same principle. Make a thing go from point A to arrive to point B within a given level of divergence.

The day we need to, we will simply stop allowing anybody outside the clubhouse to see the decimals…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haven't we kind of proved that SA is still defeatable? I feel like back in the 90's one of the tech schools was able to resolve detail-level accuracy during SA time

 

[Lawman]

Haven't we kind of proved that SA is still defeatable? I feel like back in the 90's one of the tech schools was able to resolve detail-level accuracy during SA time

Capes that will not be explored in this forum.

Suffice to say there are vulnerabilities to any complete reliance on a system of X vs Y.

Any EM signal is susceptible to some form of attack, or if you’re really swoopy being a form of infiltration. I’m routinely amused at guys saying “we need to adopt high frequency comms again” as a mitigation to satellite jamming for a future war with China. Like bro… you need to do some reading about the magnetic effects the region causes on HF comms in the battle of the Coral Sea. There is not single solution to deliberate attack on your command and control (and now navigation) architecture. You need to be able to exercise a PACE plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[///AMG]

Haha can you imagine conducting our current tactical comms on HF? Insert old guy idea that isn't aware of even a single other tool in the toolbox

 

[Lawman]

Haha can you imagine conducting our current tactical comms on HF? Insert old guy idea that isn't aware of even a single other tool in the toolbox

Every time I hear it I just want to scream.

“We can’t make satellite work… pass the same amount of data through a form of comms that was literally used by the Titanic.”

It will go about as successfully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ppragman]

This stuff is getting scary and concerning.

Just so you can sleep at night, I went to this self-driving car conference this summer... we have a really long way to go. We're 90% of the way there, unfortunately the remaining 10% is going to take 90% of the time to complete lol.

 

[MikeD]

HF using HAVE QUICK would be awesome.

 

[MikeD]

Just so you can sleep at night, I went to this self-driving car conference this summer... we have a really long way to go. We're 90% of the way there, unfortunately the remaining 10% is going to take 90% of the time to complete lol.

So about the same time as pilotless airliners?

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Haha can you imagine conducting our current tactical comms on HF? Insert old guy idea that isn't aware of even a single other tool in the toolbox

I think signal lanterns would be more secure.

 

[Richman]

Positional ambiguity sounds like me trying to figure out what I want for dinner.

 

[CFI A&P]

GPS would also have the potential to effect verticals separation with a host of air vehicles.

Most of the drones we operate fly GPS altitude not Baro. So if you were flying somewhere over say Greece/Romania/Moldova right now transitioning in altitudes below the Flight Levels there is some fudge factor on altitude with those drone orbits.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Correct, and that's my fault for being so simplistic on the matter and thinking only about lateral navigation. When getting into precision with vertical, such as LPV approaches or ordinance in theatre would be an issue with GPS hacking. Aside from another aircraft, there isn't much to hit at FL350, however the cumluogranite around Red Table would be a lot easier to hit if lateral and vertical integrity is compromised.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

I'd love to if you'd just do one of two things (or maybe three things), write it up with something other than a vague description that something didn't work, if possible have a face to face conversation with MX (despite your supreme gladiatorness you might be wrong), and if you ground an airplane with a vague description of the issue at least answer the phone so we can try to fix it. I know you're the Captain of the ship, sucks when your ship won't run. At that point you're just an angry pedestrian. And I sleep in my own bed every night.

You obviously don’t know @mikecweb in real life.

 

[MikeD]

Correct, and that's my fault for being so simplistic on the matter and thinking only about lateral navigation. When getting into precision with vertical, such as LPV approaches or ordinance in theatre would be an issue with GPS hacking. Aside from another aircraft, there isn't much to hit at FL350, however the cumluogranite around Red Table would be a lot easier to hit if lateral and vertical integrity is compromised.

And, since our fighter pilots these days have no clue how to drop manual bombs anymore, it would be a problem indeed.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

They also threw them into the ocean a lot... so there's that.

Or into the desert, which is kinda like the ocean but I think I'd rather take my chances with the water. I think.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Just so you can sleep at night, I went to this self-driving car conference this summer... we have a really long way to go. We're 90% of the way there, unfortunately the remaining 10% is going to take 90% of the time to complete lol.

but Elno promised