Slashdot Mirror
Drone Maker Enforces No-Fly Zone Over DC, Hijacking Malware Demonstrated
An anonymous reader writes A recent incident at the White House showed that small aerial vehicles (drones) present a specific security problem. Rahul Sasi, a security engineer at Citrix R&D, created MalDrone, the first backdoor malware for the AR drone ARM Linux system to target Parrot AR Drones, but says it can be modified to target others as well. The malware can be silently installed on a drone, and be used to control the drone remotely and to conduct remote surveillance. Meanwhile, the Chinese company that created the drone that crashed on the White House grounds has announced a software update for its "Phantom" series that will prohibit flight within 25 kilometers of the capital.
For anyone who wants details, the AMA safety code is here:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/f...
They also have documents describing their agreements with the FAA:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/d...
What is the security risk posed by small drones? In your explanation please include "Drones are better than mortars at delivering explosives because..."
Because a drone can autonomously delivery a brick of C4 to within a meter of where you want it to go on your first try. And you can be miles away while it does that. "Miles away" is also handy if you're using it to deliver an aerosoled nerve agent or some bio-nasty substance over, say, a presidential press conference in the Rose Garden, or a speech on the steps of the Capital.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"Drones are better than high power telescopes because you don't need line of sight"
I think you're severely overestimating the capabilities of these commercial, civilian quads. The camera in the Phantom 2 Vision+ is a 12MP, 1080p fisheye lens, very similar to a GoPro 3. You're not getting the optics of a high-power telescope.
DJI's new line, the Inspire One, has a 4K camera, which I guess allows for better quality, but you're still not zooming in. These things are loud, you're not using them for invading someone's privacy without them knowing.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
As I recall, for model aircraft the FAA rules reference (or incorporate verbatim?) the rules of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, the primary hobbyist association
Not true, though they are pretty similar in some respects.
Also note that the current FAA "rules" (FAA Advisory circular 91-57 - Model Aircraft Operating Standards) is *advisory* -- it's not mandatory. It's not a set of rules at all, just guidelines. It encourages "voluntary compliance".
The AMA bars flight over populated areas, encouraging people to find a cow pasture IR something.
The AMA rules (not binding, but they can refuse to pay insurance claims if you violate them) say that you will not fly RC planes "directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures". Not quite the same as you put it -- flying in a populated area is fine, as long as you aren't flying directly over people and aren't flying in a careless or reckless manner.
It may seem odd that a private club has effectively been given authority to make law
Again, it has not. The AMA rules are even *less* restrictive than the FAA circular in one way -- the AMA rules say not to fly over 400 feet near an airport without notifying the airport, and the FAA suggestions say not to fly over 400 feet above the surface, period. And note that R/C pilots, especially those flying gliders, fly over 400 feet quite often.
any doctor violating these generally accepted standards is likely to lose any court case.
Now, that part rings true ... the AMA safety code is basically the industry standard and if you're sued for hurting somebody, not following those standards will hurt you in court.
And indeed, it seems that whatever new *mandatory* standards the FAA comes up with be largely influenced by the AMA safety code ... but we are not there yet.