Slashdot Mirror
Why Detecting Drones Is a Tough Gig
An anonymous reader writes with a link to some interesting commentary at Help Net Security from Drone Lab CEO Zain Naboulsi about a security issue of a (so far) unusual kind: detecting drones whose masters are bent on malice. That's relevant after the recent drone flight close enough to the White House to spook the Secret Service, and that wasn't the first -- even if no malice was involved. Drones at their most dangerous in that context are small, quiet, and flying through busy, populated spaces, which makes even detecting them tough, never mind defeating them. From the article, which briefly describes pros and cons of various detection methods: Audio detection does NOT work in urban environments - period. Most microphones only listen well at 25 to 50 feet so, because of the ambient noise in the area, any audio detection method would be rendered useless at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is also too simple for an operator to change the sound signature of a drone by buying different propellers or making other modifications. It doesn't take much to defeat the many weaknesses of audio detection.
I assume detecting the RF signature of the transmitter controlling the drone is the best way.
Of course there are these problems:
1. There are many signals on the bands used for RC.
2. It is possible to build an autonomous drone.
3. In these days of software defined radio, people can spin up non-off-the-shelf, non-standard radio control systems.
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
That's what the author says as well, he's obviously selling a product based on RF detection of drones. He claims 1400 foot detection ability, also with the ability to determine the GPS location and altitude (presumably the RF signal from the drone would have that information), as well the location of the operator and the unique drone ID. He glosses over radar, but it seems that radar could be built to identify drones with a reasonable accuracy, although I suppose that birds would cause some amount of false detection. I'm sure that there are plenty of patterns of drone flight and bird flight that could be identified though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
These days you'd set a waypoint, send your drone off, and drive away. There's no RF to speak of, unless you're live-streaming it over LTE.
*if* said system had a payload of a brick of C4, or a fragmentation grenade, or a zipgun, it could be made to be quite a threat at 2lbs... Just saying, ergo the paranoia about letting people fly across the White House lawn with one.
Thirty four characters live here.
It's about being able to deflect them and prevent them from doing bad things.
Sure, it's easier to deal with something you can detect in the first place, but if you can effectively block them by putting up barriers, physical and electronic you will have succeeded in your primary goal. So here's my approach..
1. Do your best to detect them, use sound, video and detect the RF signals emitted by the device and the pilot.
2. Erect physical barriers that are not visible to the operator or the device. I'm thinking there is a LOT you can do with simple fishing line in this regard, but I'm sure a lot of tall trees would serve an excellent purpose too. Put up an obstacle course.
3. Put up electronic fences using short range GPS and WiFi jamming around the "protected" area. You can effectively reduce the ability of a drone to find it's way around and make it impossible for it to be remotely controlled.
4. Concentrate your efforts on finding the PILOT. They will likely have an RF transmitter in their hands, so it shouldn't be that hard, unless the drone is self guided (which is why you jam GPS and provide physical barriers).
5. And Finally, if you do detect something flying where you don't want, come up with some non-lethal ways of bringing it down. You don't need to fire anti-aircraft guns at it, there are ways I can think of which wouldn't present much risk to people, but would be effective in bringing down your average hobbyist's drone.
So I say again, detection is but a small piece of the total security puzzle here, and trying to use audio detection is about the LAST way I'd try it...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What about an autonomous drone which is just flying to certain GPS coordinates and then detonating? Or even just using inertial guidance and image processing?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Let me drop a 2 pound drone on your head from just 10 feet above you.
IF you survive it is unlikely you'll make such ignorant statements ever again, and I'm not even talking about loading it up with ordinance or even simply flying into you at high speed.
It's is trivial for a 2 pound drone to kill you by accident, all it takes is the most minimal effort to do it intentionally.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
won't work if they use a point to point IR laser to control it. equipment is considerably more costly, but a well funded nefarious individual could certainly do it.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
If they are that well funded, catching their drone is unlikely to be your primary worry.
Look, they could just set up a mortar and shell the white house if they where well enough funded, and there is very little you can do to stop a mortar shell in flight and I'm not even going to guess how hard it would be to get your hands on one if you where well funded... Everything has it's limits.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
http://slashdot.org/submission...
http://slashdot.org/submission...
http://slashdot.org/submission...
Because Slashdot is pulling the wool over your eyes.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Actually a CRAM system which is the land version of the naval Phalanx system has stopped thousands of mortars. Mortars are actually be easier to stop then a light drone because of their very distinctive speed, angle, and mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You all act like it's not possible to tell where a specific signal comes from.... All you need is a couple of direction finders tied together and you can develop a pretty good location for *THAT* WiFi signal and decide if it is new, if it's within a specified area and do all this very quickly. So I might not be able to determine exactly what the traffic means, but I can pretty quickly decide if it's a possible threat coming from the clearing over there and not something I've monitored for weeks on end in the office building across the street. How hard is this? If I can image it, I'm sure some smart guys have implemented this already...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You over estimate the competency of our government. Oh, wait, you said "smart guys." My bad.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(1) Send out a large electromagnetic pulse
Tomorrows headline: "Secret Service drone jammer interferes with pace makers - Half of congress deceased" :)
What possible downsides could an EMP have...
Audio detection isn't nearly as broken as the article pretends. Sure if all you have is a single mic, then you have no hope. OTOH, with multiple mics, you can *localize* sounds, which means you don't need to recognize the sounds of a drone, just realize that there's some noise coming from something in the air where there shouldn't be anything. With a microphone array, you can actually pinpoint sound sources much weaker than ambient noise. It's certainly not trivial, but within the realm of what's realistic (assuming there aren't simpler solutions).
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I just don't buy that audio can't be used. With an array of high quality microphones spread over an area fed into a software radio and some pretty hefty computing power you should be able to look for the rhythmic audio that your typical copter type drones will generate. Because even if they change the size and shape of the rotors all that does is change the frequency not the amplitudes you will see from the rhythmic action.
With some proper math and the right computing power you should be able to identify drones pretty rapidly with fourier analysis and the same microphone array could use Doppler effects to calculate position, and the directional vector. Combine this with some systems to double check such as heat, RF and conventional high band doppler radar and you should have a system that will get 99% of the drones and even provide targeting to a shoot down type system.
The key here is you need some pretty dam good microphones spread over a pretty large area feeding into a pretty massive computer array. It wouldn't be cheap or easy. The easy thing is use a doppler radar system that cross-checks it against RF emissions to eliminate birds. But IMO the best system would use all three, high band doppler radar, RF emissions and audio (and maybe even heat). With three cross checks you should be able to get pretty good accuracy.
It's actually a very hard problem - because you have to detect who is receiving the signal, not who is sending it. The sender can be far enough away to bleed into the background radio noise.
The more expensive drones can receive GPS signals and follow a preprogrammed course.
Either way, it may sound easy on the surface, but it's not.
Certain size, moving at certain speeds, emitting certain radiowaves...
When you add electronic elements to your detection scheme, a lot of those false positives (like from birds) fall off the radar... pun not intended but certainly appreciated.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They are controlled by radio which can be detected.
Yes and no.
Some higher end models and drones allow you to record and re-execute a series of maneuvers. That pretty much destroys any possibility of interference with a remote controller.
So, you get measurements of the area you're going to attack.
Head out to a field and mark off a route.
Get a viable flight pattern down and record it.
Go out, setup, let the drone loose.
Execute the arranged flight flight path.
Walk away.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Taking into account size, altitude, a simple sonar detection fence works the best. Sonar units firing vertically completely surrounding the facility to detect all incoming flying objects and then the use of suitable rapidly decomposing shot fired from a compressed air shotgun to bring it down, this to prevent excessive collateral damage of the human variety. Birds are another matter, they will end up killing all that cross the sonar detection fence. So that mess will need to be continuously cleaned up. High altitude drones require additional deployment of sonar detection equipment firing at an angle over the structure to be protected. Heavier drones of course means accepting collateral damage, screw the public save the rich and greedy and their political puppets.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The pilot would be someone who is being blackmailed to do this. He doesn't know who is blackmailing him, just gets the instructions and the drone.
Why do you think the person targeting the Killer Drone even has to be in the same country, let alone the same city?
There is no solution to this problem that involves restricting drones, because that won't stop the bad guys. The only solution is to ensure the Killer Drone can't get to your high-value target.
The drone doesn't actually have to transmit anything. It can also be made to just have a receiver.
I have thought about such things. After discussing it a 15 year old boy pointed out that if drones flying into the Whitehouse were shot up with shotguns, then there'd be a rash of people trying to get the best "drone blasted to bits" video for youtube, which would make things worse.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'd be inclined to modify that statement, and say. "Audio detection does NOT work, now".
Each rotor of a quadcopter is going to emit sound that depends on the number of prop blades and the prop speed. The four rotors will emit at frequencies that are almost but not quite the same, The four frequencies continuously shift by minute amounts as the control system adjusts power to stay stable in the air.
The quadcopter therefore has a very distinctive sound signature. This signature is out there, waiting to be detected, if the money can be found to develop the technology to do it.
Presumably if that happened, there would be a push for stealth quadcopters. But that's another kettle of fish.