Hacker's Icarus machine steals drones midflight Security researcher Jonathan Andersson has developed a tidy hardware module capable of fully hijacking a variety of popular drones and remote control gear running over the most popular protocol. Trend Micro's advanced security group manager told The Register he developed the Icarus box, and it only needs to be within range of …
You know that for sure, huh, sparky? Next question is - How to you know what you claim to know?
You'd have to be an employed member of government security to know whether or not drones in the USA have ever been used against a plane, and I don't think you have such clearance. Wake up. Grow up.
Thanks.
>The attack can likely only be fixed by updating receivers' firmware protocols, which is a feat not possible on most devices.
So they went to the trouble of locking down their kit using a 3rd party protocol (someone else thought it up/everyone else is using it so it must be good) and are now lulling themselves into a false sense of security and not bothering to offer firmware upgrade capabilities.
Them telling us its a matter of cost is not going to fly (see what i did there) considering we're talking about machines that start off at a few hundred back and go up waaay higher (pun)
Curious to see how (if ever) the first lawsuit about a hijacked drone will play out.
In the meanwhile i will feel good knowing what happened to my drone as i see it fly away to a new owner
"not bothering to offer firmware upgrade capabilities"
That wasn't what was said at all; it is "a feat not possible on most devices". That is because code is often burned into microcontrollers which are then soldered to circuit boards without any means of reprogramming them.
now that is cool!
Hijacking Pilotless flying machines?
without having to gain phyical access?
or even hack into the operators bunker?
its the stuff of science fiction!
Isnt that what they were doing at the start of "Interstellar" ?
Also on the firefly episode "Trash" - even then they had to physically swap a circuit board
[edit]
although having googled it , it seems its not a new idea . many results.
the most spectacular being a Drone that flys around hijacking other drones - making its own flying botnet! lol
pied piper style!
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/flying-hacker-contraption-hunts-other-drones-turns-them-into-zombies/
So; declare a drone exclusion zone round anything sensitive, put one of these on the top of every sensitive installation and have it hijack any drone within range, simply saying "Stop" = Drone falls out of sky (Or saying "Goto position XYZ and fall outa the sky, so we can collect the remains)
It's an interesting thought. In theory, yes.
The hijacker has to get their timing right and send a command just before the real owner sends theirs; this causes the receiver to take the hijacker's commands and ignore the owner's. So a command sent just before the hijacker's should likewise get theirs ignored.
How far one could go would depend on how long subsequent commands were locked out for.
""It works against all DSMx based radio systems, which would include drones, airplanes, cars, boats, and so on," Andersson says."
Not too sure that "drones" is the item that should be leading that list.
(gonna have to go check the driveway for DSMx signals ......)
So when you take over my high performance F3F fully composite carbon fibre glider flying at over 100mph and you crash it into some killing them instantly will you be the one facing man slaughter charges?
We fly in controlled environments but in the wrong hands a 3 meter wing span glider at 4kg made of carbon fibre will kill at those speeds. You seem intelligent, maybe you should think before developing this kind of hijacking capabilities and letting it get into incompetent hands.
Idiot...
>So when you take over my high performance F3F fully composite carbon fibre glider flying at over 100mph...
Realistically, if you're doing any kind of timed speed run you should be on a course where a crash will not hit anyone. You can't rely 100% on radio communications and the integrity of the plane's structure so its better to be safe than have to deal with the paperwork involved in hitting someone or something.
You have to use common sense when flying. I fly 3 and 4 meter ships myself (RES and full-house) and they're kept away from structures and roads even if the thermals are inviting -- its better to land and relaunch than risk alienating a neighbor or (worse) having a crash. As for radio interference I'm still on 72MHz (USA) because 2.4GHz at our regular flying field has started to become problematical -- it works but you've got to be careful where you fly. (And yes.. you do get morons who think its cool to shoot down planes; we had to track one with a direction finder some years back. Fortunately they're a tiny minority.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
