🌌 Operational Detection Techniques for Drone Interference

🌟 1. Executive Summary: Operational Drone Interference Detection Landscape

Overview: This report details currently deployed and operational techniques for detecting various forms of interference targeting Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. It focuses on methods proven effective in real-world scenarios against prevalent threats like Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing, Radio Frequency (RF) jamming, Command and Control (C2) link interference/hijacking, and network-based attacks targeting the drone ecosystem.1 The information herein is intended for technical personnel responsible for protecting drone fleets and critical operations, providing insights into the capabilities and limitations of current detection methodologies.3 The focus remains strictly on techniques demonstrably working in practice, excluding purely theoretical or laboratory-stage concepts.5
Deployed Technique Categories: Operational detection relies heavily on analyzing signals and network traffic. Key categories include:

RF-Based Detection: This is a cornerstone of interference detection, involving the analysis of the radio frequency spectrum to identify anomalies, drone communication signals (control, telemetry, video), locate emitters, and potentially identify specific hardware through unique transmission characteristics (fingerprinting).7 Techniques encompass broad spectrum analysis, deep protocol analysis (often termed RF Cyber), direction finding (DF) using antenna arrays, and RF fingerprinting based on transmitter hardware nuances.9 These methods are widely used due to the reliance of most drones on RF links.11 They can be passive, avoiding emission detection.8
GNSS-Based Detection: These techniques focus specifically on the integrity of GNSS signals (e.g., GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou) received by the drone or dedicated monitoring stations.11 Methods involve analyzing signal characteristics (power levels, correlation properties, timing), performing consistency checks against other onboard sensors (like Inertial Measurement Units - IMUs or barometers), comparing data from multiple receivers, and leveraging emerging cryptographic authentication features within GNSS signals themselves (e.g., Galileo OSNMA).15 These are crucial for detecting spoofing attacks that aim to manipulate the drone’s perceived location.17
Network-Based Detection: As drones become increasingly integrated into networked environments (often termed the Internet of Drones or IoD), monitoring network traffic within the drone ecosystem (Ground Control Station (GCS), data links, cloud interfaces) becomes vital.19 This involves applying Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS), analyzing traffic flow patterns, and implementing endpoint security measures on GCS and servers to detect malware, unauthorized access, Denial-of-Service (DoS) attempts, or other cyber threats targeting the supporting infrastructure.21
Sensor Fusion: Recognizing that no single sensor modality is infallible, operational systems increasingly combine data from multiple sensor types.9 While primary C-UAS detection often involves Radar, Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR), and Acoustic sensors to detect the physical presence of drones 7, these sensors also play a role in interference detection, particularly within integrated systems.13 For instance, radar can detect autonomous drones immune to RF/GPS interference 8, while EO/IR can provide visual confirmation or track a drone exhibiting anomalous behavior potentially caused by interference.7 Sensor fusion platforms correlate data from RF, GNSS monitoring, network sensors, radar, and EO/IR to improve overall detection accuracy, reduce false alarms (e.g., distinguishing birds from drones exhibiting jamming-induced behavior), and provide a more comprehensive operational picture.13

Application Environments: The effectiveness and suitability of detection techniques vary significantly based on the operational environment. Deployments occur across diverse settings:

Critical Infrastructure Protection: Airports, power plants, prisons, government buildings.23 Here, factors like potential interference with existing systems (e.g., airport navigation aids) and the need for high reliability are paramount.23 RF noise and line-of-sight obstructions in built-up areas can be challenging.1
Military Operations: Base defense, convoy protection, tactical situational awareness.1 Requirements include robustness, deployability (fixed, mobile, man-portable), integration with existing command and control (C2) systems, and the ability to handle potentially sophisticated military-grade threats.26
Event Security: Stadiums, large public gatherings.3 Challenges include high RF congestion, large crowds potentially obstructing line-of-sight, and the need for rapid deployment and minimal disruption.29
Border Security: Monitoring vast areas for smuggling or unauthorized crossings.10 Long-range detection and geolocation capabilities are often prioritized.
VIP Protection: Mobile security details requiring portable or vehicle-integrated systems.28 Discretion and rapid response are key. Environmental factors like urban density (multipath, RF noise), rural openness (longer ranges possible), weather conditions (affecting EO/IR and sometimes RF propagation), and line-of-sight availability heavily influence the choice and performance of detection technologies.1

Layered Defense Imperative: The inherent limitations of individual detection technologies necessitate a multi-layered approach.7 Operational counter-UAS strategies increasingly rely on integrated systems that fuse data from various sensors (e.g., RF, Radar, EO/IR, GNSS monitoring, Network IDS).13 This fusion allows for cross-validation of detections, reducing false positives (e.g., confirming an RF detection with optical tracking) and improving the overall probability of detecting diverse threats, including those employing multiple interference techniques simultaneously.2 Sophisticated C-UAS platforms act as command centers, ingesting multi-sensor data to build a unified airspace picture and direct appropriate responses.13 The evolution from simple drone detection to comprehensive Detect, Track, Identify (DTI) capabilities underscores this trend.2 Interference detection is a critical subset of this, focusing specifically on threats targeting the electromagnetic and network dependencies of drone operations, which may manifest differently than just the physical presence of the drone itself. The increasing autonomy, encryption, and stealth features of modern drones further drive the need for advanced detection methods like protocol analysis, RF fingerprinting, and AI/ML, integrated within these layered architectures.9

🌟 2. Analysis of GPS Spoofing Detection Techniques

Threat Context: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing represents a significant threat to UAS operations, involving the transmission of counterfeit satellite signals designed to mislead a drone’s receiver.11 The objective is to cause the receiver to compute an erroneous Position, Velocity, and Time (PVT) solution, thereby manipulating the drone’s navigation.17 This manipulation can force the drone off its intended course, compel it to land in an unauthorized or unsafe location, prevent it from reaching its destination, or induce collisions in swarm scenarios.15 Civilian GNSS signals, particularly GPS L1 C/A, are especially susceptible due to their unencrypted and publicly documented nature.34 Spoofing attacks range in sophistication from simple replay attacks using recorded signals to highly advanced techniques involving synchronized signal generation and seamless, gradual takeover of the receiver’s tracking loops, making detection challenging.15
Operational Detection Methods: Several techniques are operationally deployed to detect GNSS spoofing, often used in combination for improved robustness.

GNSS Signal Characteristic Analysis:

Mechanism: This method involves monitoring the characteristics of received GNSS signals for anomalies inconsistent with authentic satellite transmissions. Authentic signals arriving at the Earth’s surface are extremely weak 39; therefore, abnormally high received signal strength can be an indicator of a nearby spoofer.36 Other checks include monitoring the consistency of time-of-arrival across signals 15, analyzing correlation peak shapes, monitoring automatic gain control (AGC) levels, or detecting an unusual number of satellites being tracked with similar high power levels.36 Specialized receivers or monitoring systems may also analyze the RF spectrum around GNSS frequencies (e.g., GPS L1 at 1575.42 MHz) to detect the presence of unusually strong or structured signals indicative of spoofing transmissions.14 Real-time spectrum analyzers can visualize these interfering signals.39
Real-World Use: This technique is implemented within specialized anti-jam/anti-spoof GNSS receivers and dedicated GNSS interference monitoring systems deployed for protecting critical infrastructure, managing drone fleets, ensuring timing security, and in high-security government/military applications.14 Commercial systems like those from GPSPatron (GP-Probe series) explicitly utilize signal monitoring and spectrum analysis for detecting interference, including spoofing characteristics.14 Receiver manufacturers like Septentrio incorporate signal anomaly detection within their Advanced Interference Mitigation (AIM+) technology suite.39
Strengths: Can effectively detect less sophisticated spoofing attacks based on obvious signal power discrepancies or basic inconsistencies. Passive methods that analyze received signals do not require additional sensors beyond the GNSS receiver itself. Spectrum analysis provides direct visualization of potential interference in the GNSS bands.39
Limitations: Highly sophisticated spoofers, particularly those employing “coherent” or “seamless takeover” strategies, are designed to closely mimic the characteristics of authentic signals, including power levels and timing, making detection based solely on these properties difficult.36 Distinguishing intentional spoofing from unintentional interference or multipath effects based only on signal characteristics can be challenging.

Multi-Sensor Consistency Checks (Sensor Fusion):

Mechanism: This approach leverages the principle of redundancy by comparing the drone’s state (position, velocity, orientation, time) as determined by the GNSS receiver with the state estimated from independent onboard sensors.15 Commonly used sensors include Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), which contain accelerometers and gyroscopes providing data on motion and orientation, barometric altimeters for altitude, and magnetometers for heading.36 In some systems, vision sensors or Ultra-Wideband (UWB) ranging systems might also be used.15 The core idea is that the IMU can predict the drone’s short-term trajectory based on physics; if the GNSS-reported position deviates significantly and inexplicably from the IMU-predicted position (beyond expected error bounds), it suggests the GNSS data may be compromised.35 Extended Kalman Filters (EKFs) or similar state estimation algorithms are typically employed to fuse data from multiple sensors and inherently perform this consistency check, flagging large innovations (differences between measured and predicted states).38
Real-World Use: Sensor fusion using GNSS and IMU is a standard technique in virtually all modern aircraft navigation systems and is commonly implemented in mid-to-high-end drone autopilots (e.g., those based on PX4 or ArduPilot).31 This capability is often integrated directly into the drone’s flight control system.19 Research projects like NADODE explicitly focus on sensor fusion for navigation in GNSS-denied or interfered environments.44 The SemperFi system specifically leverages EKF-based failsafe mechanisms combined with IMU data to detect spoofing.38
Strengths: Highly effective against spoofing attacks that induce sudden or large position/velocity jumps inconsistent with the drone’s physical dynamics as measured by the IMU. Leverages sensors already present on most drones for navigation and stabilization. Provides a degree of navigation capability even if GNSS is deemed unreliable.
Limitations: The primary vulnerability lies in “stealthy” or “sophisticated” spoofing attacks that manipulate the GNSS position gradually, ensuring the induced drift remains within the acceptable error tolerance of the sensor fusion filter (e.g., EKF).38 IMUs inherently suffer from drift over time, meaning their accuracy degrades without periodic correction from an absolute source like GNSS. This limits the ability to detect very slow, long-duration spoofing attacks based solely on IMU comparison.

Multi-Receiver/Antenna Techniques:

Mechanism: These methods utilize multiple GNSS receivers or antennas installed with precisely known fixed separations, either on the drone itself or at fixed ground monitoring stations.15 One principle is that a single spoofing transmitter located at a different position from the true satellites cannot perfectly replicate the precise time differences of arrival (TDOA) or carrier phase differences observed across spatially separated antennas for multiple satellite signals simultaneously.15 Comparing the PVT solutions or raw measurements (pseudoranges, carrier phases) between the receivers can reveal inconsistencies indicative of spoofing.15 Furthermore, antenna arrays (multiple antenna elements feeding a single receiver or multiple receivers) can be used to estimate the Angle of Arrival (AoA) of incoming signals.15 Authentic satellite signals arrive from diverse directions across the sky, while spoofing signals typically originate from a single, often terrestrial, direction. Detecting a concentration of signal power from an unexpected angle strongly suggests spoofing.47 GPSPatron’s advanced configurations employ multiple detectors, potentially enabling TDOA for source localization.14
Real-World Use: Employed in high-assurance GNSS applications, including surveying, critical infrastructure timing, and military systems.14 Some advanced C-UAS platforms incorporate multi-antenna RF sensors for direction finding, which can also be applied to GNSS bands.7 Commercial systems like GPSPatron offer multi-sensor configurations specifically for enhanced interference detection and localization (using TDOA) in scenarios like drone shows.14 Controlled Reception Pattern Antennas (CRPAs), often used for anti-jamming, inherently use multiple elements and sophisticated processing that can aid in spoofing detection.48
Strengths: Can provide robust detection against a wider range of spoofing attacks, including some types of coherent attacks that might fool single-receiver systems. AoA techniques can directly indicate the direction of the spoofing source.47 Multi-receiver TDOA setups can potentially geolocate the spoofer.14
Limitations: Significantly increases hardware complexity, cost, size, weight, and power consumption (SWaP), which can be prohibitive for smaller, resource-constrained UAVs.36 Requires precise knowledge and stability of the baseline distances between antennas/receivers. While effective against single-transmitter spoofing, sophisticated multi-transmitter spoofing attacks could potentially deceive simpler multi-receiver consistency checks.15

Cryptographic Authentication:

Mechanism: This technique leverages built-in security features within certain GNSS signals to allow receivers to verify the authenticity of the broadcast navigation data.41 The primary operational example is Galileo’s Open Service Navigation Message Authentication (OSNMA).41 OSNMA employs a hybrid cryptographic approach where satellites transmit digitally signed navigation messages along with necessary key material. OSNMA-enabled receivers use a public key to verify the authenticity of the transmitted key, and then use that key and the signature to validate the navigation data itself.41 If the cryptographic checks fail for a particular satellite’s signal, the receiver flags it as potentially untrustworthy or spoofed and can exclude it from the PVT calculation.41 The US GPS system is developing a similar capability known as Chimera.43
Real-World Use: OSNMA is an operational service provided by the Galileo constellation. Its use requires GNSS receivers specifically designed to support the OSNMA protocol, typically found in newer, higher-end receiver chipsets and modules targeting professional or security-conscious applications.41 Receiver manufacturers like Septentrio explicitly advertise OSNMA support in their product lines.41 While still an emerging capability in terms of widespread adoption, it represents a functional, deployed anti-spoofing mechanism.
Strengths: Provides strong cryptographic assurance against attacks that manipulate the content of navigation messages (e.g., altering satellite positions or timing parameters). It is an inherent part of the signal structure for supporting constellations/services. It operates passively at the receiver level.
Limitations: Currently, widespread operational capability is limited to Galileo OSNMA.41 The equivalent GPS system (Chimera) is not yet fully operational.43 It primarily protects against data-level manipulation; it may not prevent simpler forms of spoofing like replay attacks that aim to capture the receiver’s tracking loops without altering the broadcast data content. Requires compatible receiver hardware and firmware capable of performing the cryptographic operations.

Machine Learning (ML) / Artificial Intelligence (AI) Based Detection:

Mechanism: This approach utilizes machine learning algorithms trained on datasets containing examples of both authentic and spoofed GNSS signals or derived data.16 Models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Random Forests, or boosting algorithms (like XGBoost) are trained to recognize subtle patterns, anomalies, or statistical deviations indicative of spoofing attacks.16 Input features can range from raw Intermediate Frequency (IF) or In-phase/Quadrature (I/Q) signal samples, to derived signal parameters (e.g., C/N0, correlation function shape, AGC levels), PVT solution data, or outputs from sensor fusion systems (e.g., EKF residuals).34 The goal is for the ML model to learn a discriminative function that can classify incoming data as either ‘authentic’ or ‘spoofed’.16
Real-World Use: ML-based detection is an active area of research and development, with increasing integration into advanced commercial GNSS security solutions and C-UAS platforms.16 Numerous academic studies demonstrate the feasibility of using ML for spoofing detection, often employing Software-Defined Radios (SDRs) for data collection and testing.34 While specific algorithms used by commercial vendors are often proprietary, the trend towards AI/ML in C-UAS suggests its operational use is growing.32
Strengths: Holds the potential to detect complex, subtle, or previously unseen (zero-day) spoofing attacks by learning intricate patterns that may evade traditional rule-based or threshold-based methods.16 Can potentially integrate and learn from diverse data sources (signal characteristics, PVT, sensor data) simultaneously. Some studies suggest faster detection times compared to conventional methods.34
Limitations: Performance is highly dependent on the quality, quantity, and representativeness of the training data, which can be challenging to acquire for all possible real-world spoofing scenarios and environments.16 Models may require significant computational resources for training and potentially for real-time inference, which could be a constraint for deployment on resource-limited UAVs.34 Like other ML systems, they are potentially vulnerable to adversarial attacks designed to fool the classifier. Ensuring model generalization to new environments and spoofer types remains a challenge.

Comparative Summary:

⚡ Table 2.1: Comparison of Operational GPS Spoofing Detection Techniques

Technique	Underlying Mechanism	Typical Deployment	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Example Implementations/Vendors
Signal Characteristic Analysis	Monitors GNSS signal properties (power, timing, correlation, spectrum) for anomalies inconsistent with authentic signals. 36	GNSS Receiver, Ground Monitoring Station	Passive; Detects simpler attacks; Spectrum visualization aids analysis. 39	Difficult against sophisticated/coherent spoofers; Hard to distinguish from noise/multipath. 36	GPSPatron 14, Septentrio (AIM+) 39
Multi-Sensor Consistency Checks	Compares GNSS-derived PVT with independent sensors (IMU, Barometer, etc.) using fusion filters (e.g., EKF) to detect inconsistencies.

15 | Drone Flight Controller/Autopilot | Effective against sudden/large deviations; Leverages existing sensors; Provides some navigation backup. 38 | Vulnerable to slow/stealthy drift attacks; Relies on secondary sensor accuracy/calibration; IMU drift limits long-term detection. | Multi-Receiver/Antenna Tech. | Compares PVT/measurements across spatially separated receivers/antennas; Uses arrays for Angle of Arrival (AoA) determination. 15 | High-Assurance Receivers, Ground Stations, C-UAS Platforms | Robust against many spoofing types; AoA gives spoofer direction; TDOA allows localization. 14 | Increases SWaP and cost; Requires precise calibration; Complex multi-transmitter attacks may pose challenges. 15 | GPSPatron (Multi-sensor) 14, CRPA Systems 48 | | Cryptographic Authentication | Verifies authenticity of navigation data using cryptographic signatures/keys embedded in GNSS signals (e.g., Galileo OSNMA). 41 | GNSS Receiver | Strong cryptographic assurance against data manipulation; Passive; Integrated into signal structure. 41 | Currently limited (mainly Galileo OSNMA); Doesn’t stop all attack types (e.g., simple replay); Requires compatible receiver. 41 | Septentrio (OSNMA support) 41 | | ML/AI-Based Detection | Trains ML models (CNN, LSTM, etc.) on GNSS/sensor data to identify complex patterns/anomalies indicative of spoofing. 16 | GNSS Receiver, GCS, C-UAS Platform | Potential to detect complex/novel attacks; Can learn from diverse data; May offer faster detection. 16 | Requires large/diverse training data; Computationally intensive; Vulnerable to adversarial ML; Generalization challenges. 16 | Research Prototypes 36; Integrated into some advanced systems |

The variety of operational techniques underscores that GNSS spoofing is a complex threat with no single perfect countermeasure. Simpler attacks might be caught by basic signal checks, but sophisticated, coherent attacks necessitate more advanced methods like multi-sensor fusion, multi-receiver techniques, or cryptographic verification where available.
Furthermore, there is a noticeable emphasis on integrating detection capabilities directly within the drone’s GNSS receiver or navigation system.35 While external C-UAS platforms can monitor the RF environment, detecting spoofing at the point of reception allows the drone itself to take immediate corrective action, such as rejecting the compromised GNSS data and relying on inertial navigation or other sensors.35 This internal resilience is crucial because spoofing directly targets the drone’s own sense of position and time. Solutions range from specialized receiver hardware with built-in mitigation (like Septentrio’s AIM+ 39) to embedded software leveraging existing sensors (like SemperFi using the EKF and IMU 38) and cryptographic checks (OSNMA 41).

🌟 3. Analysis of RF Jamming Detection Techniques

Threat Context: Radio Frequency (RF) jamming is a prevalent form of electronic attack targeting UAS, aimed at disrupting the wireless communication links vital for their operation.24 The primary targets are the Command and Control (C2) link, typically operating in unlicensed bands like 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz, or sometimes licensed or military bands, and the GNSS signals (e.g., GPS L1/L2/L5) used for navigation.8 Jamming functions by transmitting high-power noise or interfering signals on the same frequencies used by the drone’s receivers, effectively overwhelming the legitimate signals.52 This can lead to a loss of operator control, interruption of video feeds, degradation or complete loss of navigation accuracy, triggering failsafe modes (like Return-to-Home or landing), or potentially causing the drone to crash.8 Jamming techniques vary from simple, continuous broadband noise (barrage jamming) to more sophisticated methods like reactive jamming (transmitting only when legitimate signals are detected), deceptive jamming (transmitting misleading signals), or frequency-sweeping/hopping jamming.57 Jammers can be directional, omni-directional, fixed, mobile, or handheld.24
Operational Detection Methods: Detecting RF jamming involves identifying the presence and characteristics of these interfering signals within the operational RF environment.

Spectrum Analysis:

Mechanism: This fundamental technique involves using spectrum analyzers or RF sensors equipped with spectrum analysis capabilities to monitor the power levels across relevant frequency bands (e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, GNSS L-bands).8 Intentional jamming often manifests as a significant rise in the noise floor across a band or the appearance of unusually strong, persistent, or structured signals that are inconsistent with normal communication patterns or background noise.39 Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers (RTSAs) are particularly useful for capturing transient, bursty, or frequency-hopping jamming signals that might be missed by traditional swept analyzers.62 Visualization tools like waterfall displays or spectrograms allow operators to visually identify abnormal spectral activity potentially indicative of jamming.39
Real-World Use: Spectrum analysis is a core capability integrated into many C-UAS RF detection systems, electronic warfare (EW) suites, and specialized RF monitoring tools.10 Commercial spectrum analyzers (e.g., Tektronix RSA series 62) coupled with analysis software (e.g., DataVu-PC, Erisys SpectrumVu 62), dedicated RF monitoring systems (e.g., CRFS RFeye Mission 65), and versatile Software-Defined Radio (SDR) platforms running software like GNU Radio 66 are all used operationally for this purpose. Systems monitoring GNSS interference, like those from GPSPatron, also rely heavily on spectrum analysis.39
Strengths: Provides direct, visual insight into the RF environment across relevant frequencies. Capable of detecting a wide variety of jamming signals based on their spectral footprint (power, bandwidth, shape). It is a relatively mature and well-understood technology.
Limitations: Distinguishing intentional jamming from high levels of unintentional interference or legitimate signal congestion can be difficult, especially in spectrally crowded environments like urban areas or near airports.7 Basic spectrum analysis often requires skilled operator interpretation to reliably identify jamming, unless augmented with automated detection algorithms.39 Detecting very low-power, intermittent, or highly sophisticated adaptive jamming signals that blend into the noise floor can be challenging without advanced processing techniques.

RF Sensor Networks & Anomaly/Signature Detection:

Mechanism: This approach utilizes networks of distributed RF sensors (e.g., DedroneSensors 13, CRFS RFeye Nodes 10, BlueHalo Titan 68) to provide persistent, wide-area monitoring of the RF spectrum. These systems often incorporate databases containing signatures or profiles of known legitimate drone communication signals.7 Jamming can then be detected as a significant deviation from these expected signal patterns, the presence of signals matching known jamming signatures, a sudden and unexplained loss of previously detected friendly signals, or a general degradation in signal quality metrics (e.g., Signal-to-Noise Ratio - SNR).10 Automated algorithms analyze the sensor data in real-time to flag anomalies potentially caused by jamming.13
Real-World Use: This forms the basis of many commercially available C-UAS suites used for protecting fixed sites (military bases, critical infrastructure) and mobile assets.10 Vendors like Dedrone 13, CRFS 10, BlueHalo 68, Black River Systems (Ninja) 64, and Aaronia 8 offer systems employing networked RF sensors with signature/anomaly detection capabilities. These systems are operationally deployed worldwide.10
Strengths: Enables continuous, automated monitoring over potentially large areas. Distributed sensing can improve detection probability and provide data for geolocation.10 Signature matching can provide high confidence detection for known jammer types. Anomaly detection based on deviations from normal or loss of friendly signals can detect jamming even if the jamming signal itself is difficult to characterize directly. Many systems operate passively, avoiding detection themselves.8
Limitations: Signature-based detection is only effective against known jamming signals and requires continuously updated libraries.8 Anomaly detection systems can be prone to false alarms in highly dynamic or noisy RF environments if not properly tuned or baseline.7 Detecting novel, adaptive, or very low-power jamming techniques remains a significant challenge. The effective detection range is dependent on sensor sensitivity, density of deployment, and the power of the jammer.8

Direction Finding (DF) / Angle of Arrival (AoA):

Mechanism: Employing directional antennas or multi-element antenna arrays connected to RF receivers to determine the bearing or Angle of Arrival (AoA) of incoming RF signals, including jamming signals.7 By identifying the direction of a strong interfering signal, systems can assess whether it originates from an unexpected or potentially hostile location, distinct from known friendly transmitters or the expected direction of drone C2 links.10 Correlating detections from multiple spatially distributed DF sensors allows for triangulation or other geolocation techniques to estimate the physical location of the jammer.7
Real-World Use: DF/AoA capabilities are integrated into many advanced RF-based C-UAS systems, particularly those designed for military or high-security applications, as well as standalone EW direction-finding systems.7 Vendors offering C-UAS solutions with DF include CRFS (using RFeye Arrays) 10, Mistral Security 73, and others providing integrated sensor suites.74 The directional information is often used to cue directional mitigation systems like targeted jammers or kinetic effectors.54
Strengths: Provides crucial spatial information, helping to locate the source of the jamming interference.7 Enables differentiation between multiple simultaneous jammers based on their locations. Offers inherent spatial filtering, improving the ability to detect legitimate signals in the presence of directional interference. Locating the jammer facilitates targeted countermeasures against the source itself.
Limitations: The accuracy of DF/AoA can be significantly degraded by multipath propagation effects (signal reflections off buildings, terrain, etc.), especially in complex urban or mountainous environments.7 Achieving high accuracy typically requires specialized, often complex and costly, antenna arrays. Accurate geolocation usually necessitates measurements from multiple, well-surveyed sensor locations.7 May struggle to get accurate bearings on very brief, intermittent, or rapidly frequency-hopping jamming signals.

Machine Learning (ML) / AI Classification:

Mechanism: Applying machine learning algorithms to analyze captured RF data and specifically classify detected signals as intentional jamming, distinguishing them from legitimate communications, background noise, or unintentional interference.57 Models (e.g., CNNs processing spectrograms 59, Isolation Forests for anomaly detection 57, kNN or SVM on extracted features 75) are trained on datasets containing diverse examples of jamming signals (barrage, single-tone, pulsed, protocol-aware, etc.) and non-jamming signals.59 These models learn to identify the unique features and statistical properties that differentiate jamming from other RF activity.57
Real-World Use: ML/AI is increasingly being incorporated into modern C-UAS RF systems to enhance detection accuracy, automate classification, and reduce operator workload.32 Research publications frequently demonstrate the effectiveness of ML for classifying jamming types using SDRs and standard ML frameworks.57 Commercial vendors like Dedrone 67, BlueHalo (Titan AI/ML engine) 68, and others emphasize the role of AI/ML in their detection capabilities.51
Strengths: Possesses the potential to identify complex, novel, or subtle jamming patterns that might evade traditional signature or threshold-based methods.57 Can improve the automation of the detection process and significantly reduce false positive rates compared to simpler techniques.51 Can potentially classify the specific type of jamming being employed, providing valuable intelligence.57
Limitations: Requires comprehensive and diverse training datasets that accurately represent the variety of jamming techniques and real-world RF environments, which can be difficult to generate or obtain. The performance is highly contingent on the chosen model architecture, feature engineering, and the quality of the training data. ML models, especially deep learning ones, can be computationally intensive, potentially posing challenges for real-time processing on low-power or embedded platforms.

The fundamental challenge in RF jamming detection lies in reliably distinguishing malicious, intentional interference from the increasingly dense and complex background of legitimate RF signals, particularly within shared, unlicensed frequency bands like 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz.8 These bands are heavily utilized by Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, IoT devices, and other consumer electronics, creating a high noise floor and frequent intermittent transmissions that can mimic or mask jamming signals.7 Simple detection methods based solely on received power levels are often inadequate, leading to high false alarm rates when legitimate signals are strong or when overall spectral congestion is high.1 Consequently, operational systems must employ more sophisticated techniques that analyze the signal’s structure (via detailed spectrum analysis or signature matching 10), its behavior over time and space (through anomaly detection or direction finding 7), or utilize machine learning to learn the nuanced differences between intentional jamming and benign interference.57
Furthermore, while simply detecting the presence of jamming confirms a threat condition, more advanced detection systems aim to provide deeper characterization for a more effective response.7 Identifying the type of jamming being used (e.g., continuous barrage, pulsed, frequency agile, protocol-aware 59) can inform the selection of appropriate countermeasures (e.g., adapting communication protocols, employing specific filtering techniques).

Determining the source location of the jammer, typically achieved through Direction Finding (DF) techniques possibly combined with TDOA or other geolocation methods 7, is critically important.

Comparative Summary:

⚡ Table 3.1: Comparison of Operational RF Jamming Detection Techniques

Technique	Underlying Mechanism	Typical Deployment	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Example Implementations/Vendors
Spectrum Analysis	Monitors RF power across frequencies; identifies unusual power levels, noise floor increases, or persistent signals. 39	RF Sensors, C-UAS Platforms, EW Systems	Direct visualization of RF environment; Detects various jammer types based on spectral shape; Mature technology. 39	Difficulty distinguishing jamming from noise/congestion; Often requires skilled interpretation; May miss low-power/dynamic jammers. 7	Tektronix RSA 62, CRFS RFeye Mission 65, GPSPatron 39
RF Sensor Networks / Anomaly Detection	Networked sensors monitor RF; Detect deviations from normal signal patterns, known jamming signatures, or loss of friendly signals. 10	Fixed Sites, Mobile Platforms	Persistent, wide-area monitoring; Automated detection; Can detect based on effect (signal loss); Passive. 10	Signature library dependency; Potential false positives in dynamic RF; Detecting novel jammers is challenging; Range limitations. 8	Dedrone 13, CRFS 10, BlueHalo 68, BRS 64
Direction Finding (DF) / AoA	Uses directional antennas/arrays to determine the bearing of RF signals, including jammers. Triangulation for location. 7	Advanced C-UAS/EW Systems	Locates jammer source direction/position; Enables targeted mitigation; Spatial filtering. 7	Accuracy degraded by multipath; Requires specialized antennas/arrays; Geolocation needs multiple sensors; Hopping jammers challenging. 7	CRFS RFeye Array 10, Mistral 73, Various integrated systems
ML/AI Classification	Trains ML models (CNN, etc.) on RF data/spectrograms to classify signals as jamming vs. normal communications or noise. 57	C-UAS Platforms, RF Sensors (embedded/backend)	Potential to identify complex/novel jamming; Improved automation & accuracy; Can classify jammer types. 51	Requires robust/diverse training data; Computationally intensive; Vulnerable to adversarial ML; Generalization challenges.	Dedrone 67, BlueHalo 68, Research Systems 57

🌟 4. Analysis of C2 Link Interference & Hijacking Detection Techniques

Threat Context: The Command and Control (C2) link is the vital communication channel between the ground operator (via the Ground Control Station - GCS) and the UAS, enabling remote piloting, mission updates, and telemetry reception.20 Attacks targeting this link aim either to disrupt control (interference, denial of service) or, more severely, to seize unauthorized control of the aircraft (hijacking).9 Interference can be achieved through jamming the specific C2 frequencies (as discussed in Section 3) or exploiting protocol weaknesses to inject noise or disruptive commands.22 Hijacking attempts often involve more sophisticated techniques like injecting malicious commands disguised as legitimate ones, replaying previously captured valid commands, exploiting vulnerabilities in the C2 protocol stack (e.g., MAVLink, DJI protocols, Wi-Fi), or performing man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks to intercept and modify communications.21 The diversity of C2 implementations—ranging from simple RC signals to complex encrypted protocols over Wi-Fi, cellular, or satellite links—creates a broad attack surface.20
Operational Detection Methods: Detecting C2 link interference and hijacking requires analyzing the integrity, authenticity, and behavior of the C2 communications.

RF Monitoring & Analysis:

Mechanism: This involves passively monitoring the RF spectrum bands utilized for C2 communications (commonly 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, but also potentially 433 MHz, 900 MHz, cellular, or satellite bands depending on the system).8 Basic monitoring detects the presence, frequency, and potentially the bandwidth of C2 signals.8 More advanced analysis might look for signal characteristics like modulation type or hopping patterns, attempting to identify the type of C2 system in use.8 Detecting unexpected transmissions on C2 frequencies or signals with anomalous characteristics can be an initial indicator of interference or unauthorized activity.
Real-World Use: This is a fundamental capability present in nearly all RF-based C-UAS detection systems, as identifying the C2 link is often the primary way to detect non-autonomous drones.8 Systems from vendors like Dedrone, CRFS, Aaronia, Robin Radar, and Black River Systems perform RF monitoring as a core function.8 Software-Defined Radios (SDRs) coupled with analysis software (e.g., GNU Radio, custom scripts) are frequently used for this purpose in both commercial and open-source projects.66
Strengths: Provides passive detection of active C2 links. Can identify the frequencies being used. Relatively low cost for basic monitoring capabilities.8 Forms the basis for more advanced analysis techniques.
Limitations: Cannot interpret the content of encrypted or proprietary C2 protocols.8 Struggles to differentiate between authorized and unauthorized C2 traffic based solely on signal presence, especially if multiple legitimate drones are operating. Ineffective against fully autonomous drones operating without an active C2 link.8 Performance can be significantly degraded by high RF noise and interference in the operating environment.8

Protocol Analysis (RF Cyber):

Mechanism: This advanced technique goes beyond simple signal detection to intercept and decode the actual C2 communication protocols (where feasible).9 By understanding the protocol’s structure, message types, and expected sequences, these systems can analyze the content for anomalies.9 This includes detecting malformed packets, commands with invalid parameters, messages arriving out of sequence, transmissions from unauthorized source IDs, or other deviations from legitimate protocol behavior.9 Some systems leverage this deep understanding to identify specific drone models, extract unique identifiers (like serial numbers), and pinpoint the operator’s location based on protocol data.9 The most advanced form, often termed “RF cyber takeover,” uses protocol knowledge not just for detection but to actively inject commands and seize control of the drone from the legitimate operator.7
Real-World Use: This is a specialized capability offered by a subset of C-UAS vendors focusing on specific, often widely used commercial drone protocols (e.g., DJI, Parrot).9 D-Fend Solutions’ EnforceAir system is a prominent example, explicitly marketed as an RF cyber takeover solution.7 Sentrycs also utilizes protocol analytics for detection, identification, and mitigation.9 These systems require continuous reverse engineering efforts to keep up with protocol updates and new drone models.8
Strengths: Provides deep visibility into C2 communications, enabling the detection of sophisticated attacks targeting protocol logic or message content. Can accurately identify specific drone types and potentially operators.9 Allows for precise, low-collateral-damage mitigation techniques like controlled takeover and landing.56 Often claims very low false alarm rates due to specific protocol knowledge.7 Can operate effectively without requiring line-of-sight.7
Limitations: Highly dependent on prior knowledge of the specific C2 protocol being used. Ineffective against drones using unknown, heavily encrypted, or proprietary protocols that cannot be reverse-engineered.8 Requires significant ongoing effort and expertise to maintain and update the library of supported protocols.8 May not detect passive eavesdropping if the protocol itself lacks sufficient encryption or authentication.

RF Fingerprinting:

Mechanism: This technique focuses on identifying unique, unintentional characteristics in the radio frequency transmissions originating from specific hardware components, primarily the drone’s or controller’s transmitter.69 These “fingerprints” arise from minute manufacturing tolerances and variations in components like oscillators, amplifiers, and filters, resulting in subtle but measurable differences in signal properties (e.g., frequency offset, phase noise, transient signal shapes during power-up) even between devices of the same model.101 By capturing a C2 transmission and comparing its extracted fingerprint against a database of known authorized and unauthorized devices, a system can potentially detect a rogue controller attempting to communicate, even if it’s using the correct protocol, or identify a specific drone being controlled.101 Machine learning classifiers are commonly used to perform the fingerprint matching.69
Real-World Use: RF fingerprinting is an emerging but operationally relevant technique being incorporated into advanced RF surveillance and C-UAS systems.69 Its application to drone/controller identification is well-documented in research literature, often using ML algorithms like k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), SVM, or CNNs applied to captured RF signal data (raw I/Q or extracted features).69 While specific commercial implementations are often proprietary, the underlying principles are being actively developed and deployed.72 Keysight’s system, for example, uses spectral shape correlation, a form of fingerprinting.72
Strengths: Offers the potential to identify specific physical transmitters, potentially distinguishing authorized from unauthorized devices even if they use the same protocol.101 Can work even if the C2 protocol is encrypted or unknown, as it relies on physical layer characteristics.101 Operates passively by analyzing received signals.
Limitations: Requires the creation and maintenance of an extensive database of RF fingerprints for all relevant drone and controller models, which can be a significant undertaking.69 The accuracy and uniqueness of fingerprints can be affected by factors like distance, environmental conditions (temperature, multipath), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and even device aging.69 May struggle to reliably differentiate between multiple devices of the exact same hardware model, especially under non-ideal conditions.69 The robustness against deliberate fingerprint spoofing or cloning by sophisticated adversaries is an area of ongoing research.

Authentication and Encryption Verification:

Mechanism: This involves actively monitoring the C2 communication link to verify that expected security mechanisms are being correctly employed.21 For protocols that support it, like MAVLink 2, this includes checking for the presence and validity of message signatures to ensure authenticity and integrity, preventing command injection or replay attacks.90 For C2 links operating over standard wireless networks like Wi-Fi, it involves verifying the use of strong encryption and authentication protocols (e.g., WPA3 instead of vulnerable older standards like WEP or WPA2-PSK) and potentially checking for the implementation of features like Management Frame Protection (MFP/802.11w) to prevent deauthentication attacks.21 Detecting the absence of expected security features, the use of weak or deprecated protocols, or failures in signature verification can indicate a misconfiguration, a vulnerability, or an active attack attempt.
Real-World Use: These checks are often implemented as part of the secure communication protocols themselves (e.g., MAVLink 2 signing is part of the protocol standard 90) or within security-aware GCS software, drone firmware, or network infrastructure components (like Wi-Fi access points supporting WPA3).21 Security best practice guidelines for UAS strongly recommend implementing and enforcing these features.82 Monitoring tools can be configured to alert on insecure configurations or authentication failures.
Strengths: Leverages security features designed directly into the communication protocols or standards. Provides strong cryptographic assurance of data integrity and authenticity when implemented correctly. Can detect attempts to downgrade security or exploit known weaknesses in older protocols. Helps enforce security policies.
Limitations: Only effective if strong security mechanisms (like message signing or WPA3) are actually implemented, configured, and enforced on both the drone and the GCS. Does not protect against attacks that successfully bypass or exploit flaws within the security mechanism itself (e.g., weak key management, implementation bugs). Requires the monitoring system to be aware of the expected security configuration for the specific C2 link being used.

Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) for Networked C2:

Mechanism: When the C2 link traverses standard IP networks (e.g., using cellular data links, satellite communications, or Wi-Fi in infrastructure mode), traditional NIDS techniques become applicable.19 These systems monitor network traffic flowing to/from the GCS or other network infrastructure supporting the C2 link.22 Signature-based NIDS look for patterns matching known network attacks (e.g., scanning, specific exploits, malware C2 traffic).110 Anomaly-based NIDS establish a baseline of normal network activity for the C2 system and flag significant deviations, potentially indicating DoS attacks, unauthorized connections, data exfiltration, or other malicious network behavior.88 (These are discussed in more detail in Section 5).
Real-World Use: This is standard practice for securing any critical system connected to an IP network.110 It is directly applicable to UAS architectures where C2 data is routed over cellular, satellite, or enterprise Wi-Fi networks.20 Research efforts are focused on adapting and tuning NIDS, particularly ML-based anomaly detection, to the specific traffic characteristics and protocols (like MAVLink over IP) found in drone networks.88
Strengths: Leverages well-established and mature NIDS technologies and tools. Can detect a broad spectrum of network-based attacks that might target the GCS, supporting servers, or the network infrastructure facilitating the C2 link. Can provide valuable context for security incidents.
Limitations: Primarily effective for C2 links that utilize IP networking; less relevant for direct point-to-point RF links unless they are bridged to an IP network. May not detect attacks occurring purely at the RF layer (e.g., direct RF jamming or protocol manipulation that doesn’t traverse the monitored network segment) or application-layer logic flaws unless they generate detectable network anomalies.

Detecting interference or hijacking attempts on the C2 link necessitates moving beyond simply observing the presence of RF energy. Because these attacks often involve manipulating the content (injecting false commands), structure (exploiting protocol flaws), or origin (impersonating the legitimate controller) of the C2 signals, effective detection requires deeper analysis.21 Basic RF monitoring can confirm a C2 link is active but cannot easily verify its legitimacy or integrity.8 This limitation drives the operational adoption of more sophisticated techniques.
A significant operational challenge arises from the wide variety of C2 protocols and technologies employed by different drone manufacturers and systems.20 These range from proprietary, often encrypted protocols (like DJI’s OcuSync or Lightbridge 21) to open-source standards (like MAVLink 87) and common wireless technologies (like Wi-Fi 82 or cellular data links 20).

This diversity forces a trade-off in detection system design.

Comparative Summary: Table 4.1: Comparison of Operational C2 Interference & Hijacking Detection Techniques

Technique	Underlying Mechanism	Typical Deployment	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Example Implementations/Vendors/Projects
RF Monitoring & Analysis	Passively monitors C2 frequencies for signal presence, basic characteristics (frequency, bandwidth). 8	RF Sensors, C-UAS Platforms	Passive; Detects active C2 links; Foundation for other methods. 8	Cannot interpret encrypted/proprietary protocols; Difficulty distinguishing authorized/unauthorized traffic; Ineffective vs. autonomous drones. 8	Most C-UAS RF sensors (Dedrone, CRFS, etc.) 8; SDRs 66
Protocol Analysis (RF Cyber)	Intercepts and decodes C2 protocols; Analyzes message content, structure, sequence for anomalies; Identifies drone/operator. 9	Specialized C-UAS Systems	Deep C2 insight; Detects protocol logic attacks; Precise ID/location; Enables takeover mitigation; Low false positives claimed. 7	Protocol-specific; Requires reverse engineering & updates; Ineffective vs. unknown/encrypted protocols; Legality of takeover restricted. 8	D-Fend EnforceAir 7, Sentrycs 9
RF Fingerprinting	Identifies unique RF transmitter characteristics (fingerprints) to distinguish specific controllers/drones. 69	Advanced RF Sensors / C-UAS Platforms	Identifies specific hardware; Can work with encrypted/unknown protocols; Passive. 101	Requires extensive fingerprint library; Accuracy affected by environment/SNR; May not distinguish identical models reliably; Robustness vs. spoofing unclear. 69	Research Systems 69; Keysight (spectral shape) 72
Auth. & Encryption Verification	Monitors C2 link for use of expected security (message signing, strong encryption like WPA3, secure channels like VPN).

82 | Secure Protocols (MAVLink 2), GCS, Network Gear | Leverages built-in security; Provides cryptographic assurance; Detects security downgrades/violations.

82 | Only effective if strong security is implemented/enforced; Doesn’t detect flaws in the security mechanism itself; Requires knowledge of expected config. | NIDS for Networked C2 | Applies signature or anomaly-based NIDS to C2 traffic traversing IP networks (cellular, satellite, Wi-Fi infra.). 20 | Network Segments, GCS/Server Interfaces | Leverages mature NIDS tech; Detects broad range of network attacks targeting C2 infrastructure. 110 | Only for IP-based C2; May miss RF/application layer attacks; Limited visibility into encrypted traffic. 110 | Standard NIDS (Snort, Suricata, Zeek); ML-based research 88 |

🌟 5. Analysis of Network-Based Attack Detection Techniques

Threat Context: The increasing connectivity of UAS transforms them from standalone devices into components of larger, networked ecosystems, often referred to as the Internet of Drones (IoD) or Flying Ad Hoc Networks (FANETs).19 This integration, while enabling advanced capabilities like fleet management, cloud data processing, and cellular/satellite communication, also exposes the entire system—including the drones themselves (especially those with companion computers), the Ground Control Stations (GCS), communication data links, and backend cloud infrastructure—to a wide range of conventional cybersecurity threats.60 These threats are not limited to RF interference but encompass network-level attacks such as malware infection on GCS or companion computers, Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks targeting network availability, unauthorized access to systems, data interception or manipulation over network links, exploitation of software vulnerabilities in GCS applications or drone firmware, and attacks originating from or targeting connected cloud services.19 Securing this networked ecosystem requires applying established cybersecurity principles and detection techniques adapted to the unique aspects of UAS operations.113
Operational Detection Methods: Detecting network-based attacks within the UAS ecosystem relies on monitoring network traffic and system activity for signs of malicious behavior.

Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS):

Mechanism: NIDS are deployed at strategic points within the network infrastructure connecting UAS components (e.g., GCS network segments, links to cloud services, potentially network interfaces on drones if IP-connected).88 They continuously monitor network traffic passing through these points.

Signature-based NIDS: These systems compare network traffic against a database of known attack signatures, malware communication patterns, and indicators of compromise (IoCs).110 When a match is found, an alert is generated. This is effective for detecting well-known threats.
Anomaly-based NIDS: These systems first establish a baseline model of “normal” network behavior for the UAS ecosystem, considering factors like typical protocols used (e.g., MAVLink over UDP, HTTPS for cloud communication), traffic volumes, connection patterns, and device interactions.112 They then monitor for statistically significant deviations from this baseline, flagging anomalies that could indicate novel attacks, zero-day exploits, or policy violations.78 Machine learning and AI techniques are increasingly used for building sophisticated anomaly detection models.46

Real-World Use: NIDS are a fundamental component of cybersecurity for any critical network infrastructure. Their application to UAS is standard practice wherever IP networking is involved in C2 or data handling.19 Common open-source NIDS like Snort, Suricata, and Zeek (formerly Bro) can be deployed and configured to monitor drone-related network segments.111 Significant research is underway to develop and refine NIDS, particularly ML-based anomaly detection, specifically tailored for the unique characteristics of drone network traffic and protocols like MAVLink.46
Strengths: Provides crucial visibility into network-level threats targeting the UAS infrastructure. Signature-based detection offers high accuracy and low false positives for known threats.110 Anomaly-based detection offers the potential to identify novel or zero-day attacks not yet in signature databases.110 Leverages mature and widely understood cybersecurity technologies.
Limitations: Signature-based NIDS are ineffective against unknown or polymorphic threats.110 Anomaly-based NIDS can suffer from higher false positive rates, requiring careful tuning, baselining, and potentially significant human oversight.110 Both types face challenges in inspecting encrypted network traffic (e.g., TLS/SSL) unless specific decryption or man-in-the-middle inspection capabilities are implemented. May fail to detect attacks that occur purely at the RF physical layer or application logic flaws if these do not generate corresponding network-level anomalies.

Network Traffic Analysis (Flow Analysis & Metadata):

Mechanism: This technique focuses on analyzing metadata and patterns derived from network traffic flows, rather than inspecting the full content of every packet.85 Key features extracted include source and destination IP addresses, port numbers, protocol types, packet sizes, inter-arrival times, connection durations, and traffic volumes.85 By analyzing these metadata characteristics over time, often using statistical methods or machine learning models, systems can detect anomalies indicative of malicious activity, even within encrypted traffic streams.85 Examples include detecting DoS flood patterns (high volume, unusual sources), scanning activity (connections to multiple ports/hosts), covert channels (unusual packet sizes or timing), or deviations from expected communication partners or protocols.88
Real-World Use: Network traffic analysis is often performed by NIDS platforms themselves or by dedicated Network Detection and Response (NDR) or Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems that ingest flow data (e.g., NetFlow, sFlow) or packet metadata generated by sensors like Zeek.111 Research specifically explores applying ML-based traffic analysis to identify drone presence or operational modes based on encrypted Wi-Fi traffic patterns 85 or to detect attacks within MAVLink communications based on message flow characteristics.88
Strengths: Can provide valuable security insights even when traffic payloads are encrypted, overcoming a major limitation of content-based inspection. Often less computationally intensive than deep packet inspection, making it suitable for high-volume networks. Can detect anomalies in communication behavior, volume, timing, or communication partners that might indicate compromise or policy violations.
Limitations: It is an indirect detection method; identifying an anomaly in traffic patterns may not reveal the specific nature or intent of the underlying attack. Can be prone to false positives if normal network behavior changes significantly or is highly variable (common in mobile/ad-hoc networks like FANETs).113 The effectiveness heavily relies on the quality of the extracted features and the robustness of the analytical models (statistical or ML) used.

Endpoint Security (GCS, Servers, Companion Computers):

Mechanism: This involves installing and running security software directly on the critical computing endpoints within the UAS ecosystem.19 This includes the Ground Control Station (GCS) computers, any backend servers used for data processing or fleet management, and potentially onboard companion computers if used on the drones.84 Deployed software typically includes traditional antivirus/anti-malware scanners that look for known malicious code signatures, as well as more advanced Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions that monitor system processes, file system activity, registry changes (on Windows), network connections initiated by the host, and user behavior for anomalies or indicators of compromise.106 Host-based Intrusion Detection Systems (HIDS) may also be used.
Real-World Use: Applying endpoint security is a fundamental security requirement for any computer system, especially those used for critical operations like GCS.81 Standard commercial and open-source endpoint security solutions are applicable to GCS (often running Windows or Linux) and servers. Applying robust endpoint security to resource-constrained companion computers onboard drones presents more challenges but is increasingly important as these computers gain more capabilities.106
Strengths: Provides direct protection for the computing devices themselves, detecting threats that execute locally on the host. Can detect malware infections, unauthorized software execution, privilege escalation attempts, and malicious file modifications. Acts as a critical last line of defense if network security measures are bypassed.
Limitations: Does not directly detect network-level attacks (like scanning or DoS floods) unless those attacks result in observable malicious activity on the endpoint itself. Requires security agents to be installed, managed, and updated on each protected endpoint. Can potentially be disabled or bypassed by sophisticated attackers with sufficient privileges on the host.

Protocol-Specific Security Monitoring (e.g., MAVLink IDS):

Mechanism: This involves developing and deploying monitoring and detection capabilities specifically tailored to the application-layer protocols used within the drone ecosystem, such as MAVLink, DDS (Data Distribution Service), or proprietary protocols.22 Unlike generic NIDS that look at network headers or general traffic patterns, these systems understand the syntax and semantics of the specific drone protocols.88 They monitor the sequence of messages, validate the content and parameters within messages against expected ranges or mission context, verify source and destination IDs, and check for violations of the protocol state machine.88 Machine learning models can be trained specifically on sequences of MAVLink messages to detect anomalies indicative of injection or manipulation attacks.88 Formal methods can also be applied to rigorously verify that communication adheres to a formally specified protocol, detecting deviations that could lead to unsafe states.129
Real-World Use: This is largely an area of active research and development, though components may be integrated into security-focused GCS software, autopilots, or specialized middleware.88 Open-source projects like MAVLink Router offer basic message filtering and sniffing capabilities that could be extended for security monitoring.135 Academic projects like MUVIDS demonstrate LSTM-based MAVLink IDS 88, while DATUM explores formal verification of MAVLink interactions.129 The use of DDS in ROS 2 environments for drone communication also opens avenues for applying DDS security features and monitoring.133
Strengths: Offers high fidelity in detecting attacks that specifically exploit weaknesses or manipulate the logic of drone communication protocols. Can understand the operational context of messages (e.g., is this command valid given the current flight mode?). Can potentially detect subtle manipulations or logical inconsistencies missed by generic network or RF analysis tools.
Limitations: Highly protocol-specific, requiring dedicated development and implementation effort for each different protocol used in the ecosystem (MAVLink, DDS, various proprietary protocols). Requires a deep understanding of the protocol standards, common implementation practices, and potential vulnerabilities. May struggle with encrypted protocol data unless integrated at a point where data is decrypted, or if security analysis is based purely on metadata/sequence patterns.

The integration of drones into networked environments necessitates a shift in security thinking beyond just the physical aircraft and its immediate RF links.19 The UAS ecosystem, including the GCS, data processing servers, and the communication networks connecting them, inherits vulnerabilities common to all networked computer systems.60 Therefore, securing this ecosystem requires the application of established network security paradigms. This includes deploying Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) to monitor traffic for known attacks or anomalous behavior, utilizing Network Traffic Analysis to gain insights even from encrypted flows, and implementing robust Endpoint Security on critical components like the GCS to protect against malware and local compromise.88 These traditional cybersecurity measures form an essential baseline for protecting the networked aspects of modern UAS operations.
Within the realm of network-based detection for UAS, Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are playing an increasingly significant role, particularly in anomaly-based NIDS and traffic analysis.88 Drone networks often exhibit dynamic characteristics (e.g., changing topologies in FANETs, variable link quality, unique traffic patterns associated with telemetry and control) that can challenge traditional static signature-based or simple threshold-based anomaly detection methods.113 ML/AI models, especially deep learning approaches like LSTMs or Autoencoders, are better equipped to learn complex, time-varying baseline behaviors from high-dimensional network data and identify subtle deviations that may indicate sophisticated or novel attacks.46 The significant body of research focusing on applying ML/AI NIDS specifically to drone-related datasets (like CICIDS2017 used in drone contexts, or MAVLink simulations) reflects the perceived value of these techniques for enhancing the security of dynamic and complex UAS networks.88
Comparative Summary: Table 5.1: Comparison of Operational Network-Based Attack Detection Techniques for UAS

Technique	Underlying Mechanism	Typical Deployment Location	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Example Implementations/Tools
Signature-Based NIDS	Compares network traffic against a database of known attack signatures and malware patterns. 110	Network Segments (GCS network, Cloud links)	High accuracy for known threats; Low false positive rate; Mature technology. 110	Cannot detect unknown/zero-day attacks; Requires constant signature updates; Struggles with encrypted traffic. 110	Snort, Suricata, Commercial NIDS products
Anomaly-Based NIDS (ML/AI)	Establishes normal network behavior baseline; Detects deviations using statistical methods or ML/AI. 110	Network Segments, GCS network, Cloud links	Can detect novel/zero-day attacks; Adapts to changing environments (with retraining); Leverages ML/AI power. 110	Higher potential for false positives; Requires careful tuning/training; Can be complex; Struggles with encryption. 110	Zeek (Bro), ML-based NIDS research 88, Commercial NDR solutions
Network Traffic Analysis	Analyzes traffic metadata (flows, packet sizes, timing) for anomalies, often using ML, without full content inspection.

85 | NIDS Sensors, Flow Collectors, SIEM/NDR Platforms | Can provide insights from encrypted traffic; Detects behavioral anomalies; Less intensive than deep packet inspection.

85 | Indirect detection (may not identify specific attack); Potential false positives with changing patterns; Relies on model/feature quality. | Endpoint Security (GCS, etc.) | Deploys AV/Malware/EDR/HIDS software on hosts (GCS, servers, companion computers) to detect malicious activity locally. 82 | GCS, Servers, Drone Companion Computers | Direct protection of critical hosts; Detects local malware/unauthorized activity; Last line of defense. 106 | Does not detect network-only attacks; Requires agent installation/maintenance; Can be bypassed; Performance impact. 106 | Standard AV/EDR solutions (Commercial, Open Source) | | Protocol-Specific IDS (MAVLink) | Monitors drone-specific protocols (e.g., MAVLink) for message validity, sequence anomalies, parameter violations. 88 | GCS Software, Autopilot Firmware, Middleware | High fidelity for protocol-specific attacks; Understands operational context; Detects subtle manipulations. 88 | Protocol-specific (needs separate implementation); Requires deep protocol knowledge; May struggle with encryption. 88 | Research: MUVIDS 88, DATUM 129; MAVLink Router 135 |

🌟 6. Comparative Analysis of Prominent Operational Techniques

Evaluating and selecting the most appropriate interference detection techniques requires a comparative analysis based on key operational metrics. The optimal choice or combination of techniques depends heavily on the specific threat model, deployment environment, budget constraints, and the required level of assurance.

Detection Accuracy & False Alarm Rate:

RF Protocol Analysis (Cyber Takeover): Claims very high accuracy and near-zero false positives for supported protocols, as it relies on specific protocol decoding.7 However, accuracy drops to zero for unsupported protocols.
GNSS Cryptographic Authentication (OSNMA): Offers high cryptographic assurance against data spoofing for authenticated signals, leading to high accuracy and low false positives for that specific threat vector.41
RF Fingerprinting: Accuracy depends heavily on the quality of the fingerprint library, SNR, and environmental factors. Can achieve high accuracy (e.g., >96-98% in controlled tests 69), but real-world performance may vary, and false positives are possible, especially with similar devices or noise.69
ML/AI-Based Detection (GNSS, RF, Network): Potential for high accuracy against complex threats, but performance is highly dependent on training data quality and model generalization.16 False positive rates can be higher than signature-based methods if not well-tuned.110 Research shows high accuracy (e.g., >99% for specific ML NIDS or GPS spoofing detection models 16).
GNSS Multi-Sensor Consistency: Generally reliable for detecting significant deviations, but susceptible to false negatives for slow/stealthy spoofing within filter tolerances.38 False positives can occur due to sensor noise or calibration issues.
Basic RF Monitoring/Spectrum Analysis: Prone to higher false alarm rates in noisy/congested environments if relying solely on power thresholds or simple anomaly detection.1 Accuracy improves significantly when combined with signature matching, DF, or ML.59
NIDS (Signature-based): High accuracy, low false positives for known threats.110
NIDS (Anomaly-based): Variable accuracy, potentially higher false positives, but can detect unknown threats.110

Detection Range:

RF-based methods (Monitoring, Protocol Analysis, Fingerprinting): Range is fundamentally limited by the drone’s/controller’s transmission power and the sensitivity of the receiver. Typical ranges cited are often up to several kilometers (e.g., 1-10 km) for standard commercial drone signals detected by specialized sensors.10 However, practical range can be much shorter in cluttered or noisy environments.8 High-gain antennas can extend range.10 Detection of military drones can reach much further (e.g., 400 km mentioned for CRFS geolocation).10
GNSS-based methods: Detection occurs at the receiver (drone or monitoring station). The ‘range’ relates more to the area covered by monitoring stations or the drone’s operational area. Ground-based monitoring networks (like GPSPatron) provide coverage over the deployment area.14
Network-based methods (NIDS, Traffic Analysis): Range is not directly applicable in the same way as RF. Detection occurs wherever network traffic can be monitored (e.g., at the GCS, network choke points, cloud interfaces).

Responsiveness (Detection Speed):

RF Protocol Analysis/Cyber Takeover: Can offer very rapid detection and mitigation once a known protocol signal is intercepted.56
ML/AI-Based Detection: Inference speed depends on model complexity and hardware. Some ML methods claim fast detection times (e.g., 2ms for XGBoost GPS spoofing detection 34, sub-second recovery for SemperFi 45). Real-time processing is a key goal.70
GNSS Signal Analysis/Consistency Checks: Detection speed depends on the nature of the spoofing/jamming and the filtering/averaging time constants in the receiver or navigation filter. Sudden changes may be detected quickly, while slow drifts take longer.38
RF Monitoring/Spectrum Analysis: RTSAs can capture events very quickly.62 Networked sensor systems provide real-time alerts.10
NIDS/Network Traffic Analysis: Typically operate in near real-time, analyzing traffic as it flows. Latency depends on processing load and system architecture.

Types of Interference Addressed:

GNSS-Specific Techniques (Signal Analysis, Consistency Checks, Multi-Receiver, Crypto): Primarily target GNSS spoofing, though signal analysis can also detect GNSS jamming.14
RF-Specific Techniques (Spectrum Analysis, Protocol Analysis, Fingerprinting, DF): Primarily target RF jamming and C2 link interference/hijacking.7 Protocol analysis is particularly focused on C2 manipulation.9
Network-Based Techniques (NIDS, Traffic Analysis, Endpoint Security): Target cyber threats over IP networks, including DoS, malware, unauthorized access, data breaches affecting GCS, servers, or networked data links.19
ML/AI Techniques: Can be trained to detect various types of interference depending on the input data (GNSS spoofing/jamming, RF jamming, C2 anomalies, network intrusions).16

Indicative Cost Considerations:

High Cost: Systems involving sophisticated hardware like multi-element antenna arrays (for advanced DF/Anti-Jam/Spoof detection), high-performance radars (though primarily for physical detection, they are part of integrated systems), advanced protocol analysis/takeover systems requiring significant R&D, and comprehensive NIDS/SIEM deployments can be expensive.36 Military-grade systems often fall into this category.26 Estimates for full C-UAS site deployments can run into millions USD.137
Medium Cost: Commercial RF sensor networks (e.g., Dedrone, CRFS nodes), specialized GNSS monitoring hardware (e.g., GPSPatron probes), robust endpoint security solutions (EDR), and commercial spectrum analyzers.10 Costs can vary widely based on capability and scale. Subscription costs for signature/protocol library updates can be significant for some RF systems.8
Low Cost: Basic RF monitoring using SDRs and open-source software 66, basic acoustic or optical sensors (though less effective for interference detection itself) 8, open-source NIDS software (requires hardware and expertise), basic endpoint AV. Some research explores low-cost kinetic solutions, implying detection components might also aim for lower costs.139 Cloud-based detection services are emerging to make capabilities more affordable by shifting from hardware purchase to service models.137

Overall Comparison: RF-based techniques (especially protocol analysis and fingerprinting) and GNSS-specific methods (like multi-sensor checks and authentication) offer the most direct ways to detect interference targeting those specific systems. Network-based detection is crucial for protecting the supporting infrastructure. ML/AI is emerging as a powerful enhancement across all categories, promising improved accuracy and detection of novel threats, but requiring careful implementation and validation.

🌟 7. Implementation Examples: Open Source Projects & Commercial Systems

Providing concrete examples of systems and projects implementing these detection techniques offers valuable context for technical personnel.

Open Source Projects (GitHub, etc.):

RF Drone/Controller Detection & Analysis (SDR-based):

DroneSecurity (RUB-SysSec): Focuses on decoding DJI’s DroneID protocol using SDRs (Ettus USRP mentioned) to extract drone and operator location. Provides Python code for offline analysis of captured samples and live reception. Implements Zadoff-Chu sequence detection and OFDM symbol processing. 86 (> ⚠️ Note: DroneID is DJI proprietary, related to but distinct from regulatory Remote ID).
porglet (deptofdefense): Aims for a low-cost, multi-sensor drone detection system using HackRF SDR for wide spectrum sweeping (1 MHz - 6 GHz), Wi-Fi scanning (checking BSSIDs against vendor lists), Zigbee sniffing, and potentially frequency hopping pattern detection (Galileo component mentioned). Designed for rapid deployment. 93
RF-Drone-Detection (tesorrells): Explores passive drone detection by analyzing RF communications (initially Wi-Fi MAC addresses/OUIs) using HackRF and GNU Radio. Includes scripts for sweeping, data collection/processing, and Wi-Fi monitoring using airodump-ng. Discusses limitations (MAC spoofing) and future work (detecting noise indicative of drone vibration). 66
DroneRF (al-sad): Provides MATLAB and Python code associated with a publication on RF-based drone detection and identification using deep learning. Leverages an open-source DroneRF dataset available on Mendeley. 142
RemoteIDReceiver (cyber-defence-campus): Web application for monitoring drones based on Remote ID standards (ASD-STAN) and DJI DroneID via Wi-Fi sniffing. Designed to run on Linux (e.g., Raspberry Pi) using Python and requires a Wi-Fi interface capable of monitor mode. 143
Other SDR Tools: General purpose SDR software like GNU Radio 66, libraries for specific SDR hardware (e.g., python3-uhd for USRP 92, HackRF tools 66), and spectrum analysis tools (e.g., Inspectrum 92) are fundamental building blocks used in these projects. Openwifi 145 might be relevant for Wi-Fi based detection/analysis.

Network Protocol Handling & IDS (MAVLink focus):

MAVLink Project (mavlink / mavgen): Provides the core MAVLink protocol definitions (XML) and code generators (especially mavgen for C/C++/Python) to create libraries for parsing and packing MAVLink messages. Includes support for MAVLink 2 features like message signing for security. Essential for any system interacting with MAVLink. 90
MAVLink Router (mavlink-router): Application to route MAVLink messages between multiple endpoints (UART, UDP, TCP). Includes features for message filtering (based on MsgID, SrcSys, SrcComp) and message sniffing, which could potentially be adapted for basic intrusion detection or monitoring tasks. 135
ArduPilot / PX4: Major open-source drone autopilots that heavily utilize MAVLink for GCS communication and potentially inter-component communication. Their codebases demonstrate practical MAVLink implementation and handling. PX4 also integrates uXRCE-DDS for ROS 2 communication. 87
Research IDS Implementations: While perhaps not standalone projects, research papers often release code or describe implementations of ML-based IDS for MAVLink (e.g., MUVIDS using LSTM 88) or formal methods tools (e.g., DATUM using F* 129). These may be available via author websites or academic repositories.

Computer Vision Drone Detection:

Advanced-Aerial-Drone-Detection-System (Ayushkumawat): Demonstrates real-time drone detection using YOLOv5 (a popular deep learning object detection model) and OpenCV. Focuses on visual detection from camera feeds, including defining warning zones. Uses PyTorch. Provides link to Roboflow dataset. 150 (> ⚠️ Note: Primarily detects physical presence, not interference, but relevant as a common sensor type).

Notable Commercial C-UAS Systems/Vendors (Implementing Relevant Detection):

(> ⚠️ Note: Vendor capabilities evolve; this is based on provided snippets and general knowledge. Many offer integrated systems with multiple sensor types).
Dedrone: Offers a multi-sensor platform (DedroneTracker. AI) integrating RF sensors (DedroneSensors for detection, classification, location), PTZ cameras, and third-party radars (Echodyne, Robin Radar mentioned as partners).13 Employs AI/ML for sensor fusion and false positive reduction.13 Also offers mitigation (DroneDefender jammer).67 Provides fixed, mobile, and portable solutions.67 RF sensors claim detection up to 10 km.67
D-Fend Solutions: Specializes in RF-based cyber takeover technology (EnforceAir) for detection, identification, and safe mitigation.7 Focuses on protocol analysis to control specific commercial drones without jamming.56 Offers various deployment options (fixed, vehicle, man-portable, maritime).95 Claims effectiveness without line-of-sight and low false positives.7
CRFS: Provides high-performance RF sensors (RFeye) and software (RFeye Mission) for drone detection, 3D geolocation (TDOA, AoA), and classification based on signal hunting.10 Emphasizes wide frequency coverage (100 MHz - >10 GHz) to detect various drone types (COTS, modified, military).10 Technology is TRL-9 and integrated into systems like L3Harris Drone Guardian and Rafael Drone Dome.10 Offers low false positives and long-range detection (up to 400 km for military drones claimed).10
Robin Radar Systems: Develops specialized drone detection radars (IRIS, ELVIRA) using micro-Doppler technology to distinguish drones from birds, reducing false alarms.8 IRIS provides 3D, 360° coverage and can detect autonomous/hovering drones.8 Systems designed for integration with other sensors.8 Used for airport, critical infrastructure, military, and event security.64
Echodyne: Produces compact, high-performance Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) radars (e.g., EchoFlight, EchoGuard) suitable for C-UAS applications, including fixed, temporary, and on-the-move deployments.64 Emphasizes high-accuracy 4D data for tracking and targeting.156 Integrated into systems like Dedrone’s.151
Aaronia AG: Offers RF detection systems (e.g., AARTOS) and spectrum analyzers.8 Systems designed to detect, track, and potentially neutralize drones.8 Also provides EW tools (jamming).64
Black River Systems Company: Develops the Ninja C-sUAS family (Gen2, TRx, Dismount, Rx) using passive RF sensing (70 MHz - 6 GHz) to detect, identify, classify, track, and potentially mitigate Group 1-3 UAS.64 Emphasizes detection of communication signals with low false alarms and significant range (>10km claimed).64 JCO-approved and widely deployed CONUS/OCONUS.64
Anduril Industries: Provides an end-to-end C-UAS system built around their Lattice AI platform.27 Integrates sensors like Sentry Towers (with RF, radar, optics) and effectors (RF, EW via Pulsar, kinetic via Anvil interceptor drone or Roadrunner-M).158 Emphasizes AI for autonomous detection, tracking, classification, and threat assessment at the edge.27 Open architecture allows integration of third-party systems.158
BlueHalo: Offers the Titan C-UAS system, an autonomous RF detection and mitigation solution using AI/ML.65 Detects controller, video, telemetry, Wi-Fi links (400MHz - 6GHz).68 Integrates with other sensors (radar, optical) and C2 systems (ATAK).68 Available in fixed (DIVR MKII) and portable/mobile (MPV3) configurations (Titan-SV).68 Operationally validated by military/government entities.68
SRC Inc.: Develops C-UAS technology, including radars and EW systems, fielded by US Army and Air Force.159 Part of the LIDS family of systems.159 Offers Silent Archer C-UAS technology.159 Involved in fixed-site C-UAS solutions for DoD.159
Fortem Technologies: Provides the SkyDome System, an integrated solution including TrueView radars (R20, R30, R40 AESA), SkyDome Manager software (C2 with sensor fusion), and the DroneHunter F700 interceptor drone.51 Emphasizes end-to-end integration and AI at the edge for detection and classification.51
GPSPatron: Specializes in GNSS interference detection and signal quality analysis systems.14 Offers GP-Probe detectors (L1, TGE2) and GP-Cloud software for monitoring, logging, classification, and localization (TDOA) of jamming and spoofing.14 Provides solutions for drone shows, critical infrastructure.14
Septentrio: Manufacturer of high-end GNSS receivers featuring advanced interference mitigation (AIM+) including anti-jamming (filtering, blanking) and anti-spoofing (signal anomaly detection, OSNMA support) capabilities suitable for drone applications requiring robust PNT.39
Other Vendors: Many other companies operate in the C-UAS space, offering various detection and mitigation technologies, including RF analysis, radar, EO/IR, acoustics, jammers, spoofers, kinetic solutions, and integrated systems (e.g., Northrop Grumman 26, Raytheon (Coyote) 27, Thales, Rafael (Drone Dome) 10, Rohde & Schwarz 8, CERBAIR 8, MARSS 159, OpenWorks (SkyWall nets) 64, MyDefence 161, SkySafe 65, Trakka Systems 65, HENSOLDT 157, SAIC (integrator) 30, etc.).6

🌟 8. Conclusion

The detection of interference targeting UAS operations is a critical and rapidly evolving field within cybersecurity and electronic warfare. As drones become more capable and integrated into sensitive operations, the threats posed by GPS spoofing, RF jamming, C2 link manipulation, and network-based attacks are growing in sophistication and prevalence.1 This report has analyzed the operational techniques currently employed to detect these forms of interference, focusing on methods with demonstrated real-world applicability. The analysis reveals that no single detection technology provides a panacea. RF-based methods, including spectrum analysis, protocol analysis, and fingerprinting, are essential for monitoring the communication links most drones rely on, but face challenges with encrypted or unknown protocols, autonomous drones, and noisy RF environments.8 GNSS interference detection techniques, ranging from signal characteristic analysis and multi-sensor consistency checks to cryptographic authentication, are vital for protecting navigation integrity but must contend with increasingly sophisticated spoofing attacks.16 Network-based detection methods, leveraging traditional NIDS, traffic analysis, and endpoint security, are crucial for securing the expanding IT infrastructure supporting drone operations but may not directly address RF-layer threats.106

Consequently, the most effective operational strategies invariably involve a multi-layered, sensor-fused approach.7 By integrating data from diverse sensors—RF monitors, GNSS integrity checkers, network sensors, potentially augmented by radar and EO/IR for physical tracking and validation—organizations can achieve a higher probability of detection, improved classification accuracy, reduced false alarms, and a more resilient defense against the multifaceted nature of drone interference threats.13 The increasing incorporation of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning across all detection modalities is a key trend, enabling systems to automatically identify more complex patterns, adapt to evolving threats, and reduce operator burden.32

Technical personnel responsible for drone fleet protection must understand the specific capabilities and limitations of each detection technique within their operational context. Factors such as the types of drones being protected, the anticipated threat vectors, the characteristics of the operating environment (urban vs.

rural, RF noise levels), regulatory constraints, and budget will all influence the selection and configuration of an effective interference detection system.

🔧 Works cited

1. GAO-22-105705, Accessible Version, Science & Tech Spotlight: Counter-Drone Technologies, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/719512.pdf 2. Counter Uncrewed Aerial Systems (C-UAS) - National Protective Security Authority | NPSA, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.npsa.gov.uk/counter-uncrewed-aerial-systems-c-uas 3. Counter-Drone Technology | Can drones be stopped with technology? - AirSight, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.airsight.com/knowledge-hub/counter-drone-technology 4. ST-C-UAS Technology Guide - Homeland Security, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.dhs.gov/publication/st-c-uas-technology-guide 5. Drone and Controller Detection and Localization: Trends and Challenges - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/24/12612 6. COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2019/12/CSD-CUAS-2nd-Edition-Web.pdf 7. Evaluating counter-drone (C-UAS) Detection Technologies | D-Fend Solutions, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://d-fendsolutions.com/anti-drone-detection/ 8. 10 Types of Counter-drone Technology to Detect and Stop Drones Today, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.robinradar.com/resources/10-counter-drone-technologies-to-detect-and-stop-drones-today 9. A Step-by-step Guide to Counter UAS Technologies - Sentrycs, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://sentrycs.com/the-counter-drone-blog/a-step-by-step-guide-to-counter-uas-unmanned-aerial-systems-technologies/ 10. RFeye DroneDefense | CRFS | Spectrum Monitoring and Geolocation, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.crfs.com/solutions/drone-detection 11. 10 Types of Drone Detection Technology and Defense System - SZMID, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.szmidjammer.com/blog/drone-detection-technology/ 12. Real-Time and Accurate Drone Detection in a Video with a Static Background - PMC, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7412503/ 13. White paper: Counter-Drone: The Comprehensive Guide to Counter-UAS/C-UAS/CUAS - Dedrone, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.dedrone.com/white-papers/counter-uas 14. Drone Show Security: Comprehensive GNSS Interference Monitoring and Logging | GPSPATRON.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://gpspatron.com/drone-show-security-comprehensive-gnss-interference-monitoring-and-logging/ 15. GPS-Spoofing Attack Detection Mechanism for UAV Swarms - IHP, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.ihp-microelectronics.com/php_scripts/publications/manuscript_files/mykytyn-mykytyn-1-18-2023-2024.pdf 16. Detection of UAV GPS Spoofing Attacks Using a Stacked Ensemble Method - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/1/2 17. What is a GPS Spoofer and How Does it Work? - NQDefense - Anti-Drone System, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.nqdefense.com/what-is-a-gps-spoofer-and-how-does-it-work/ 18. GPS Spoofing | GNSS Drone Spoofers - Unmanned Systems Technology, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/expo/drone-gps-spoofing/ 19. Security Threats Analysis of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System - Pure, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/226667029/MILCOM_Security_Threats_Analysis_of_the_UAV_System_PREPRINT.pdf 20. OVERVIEW OF SECURITY OF UNCREWED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) - MITRE Corporation, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://info.mitre-engenuity.org/hubfs/Open_Generation/Open%20Gen%20Reports/Open_Generation_Overview_of_Security_of_Uncrewed_UAS_Jan2023.pdf 21. How Do Drones Operate and What’s Their Security Implications - AirSight, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.airsight.com/blog/drones-operate-security-implications 22. Secure Drone Communications using MQTT protocol - International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.ijcesen.com/index.php/ijcesen/article/download/685/405 23. UAS Detection, Mitigation, and Response on Airports | Federal Aviation Administration, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/airports/new_entrants/uas_detection_mitigation_response 24. Skyfence | Drone Defence | Prevents drones from ﬂying, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.dronedefence.co.uk/skyfence/ 25. Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) Test Bed Program | Transportation Security Administration - TSA, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/c-uas 26. Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) - Northrop Grumman, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/land/counter-unmanned-aerial-systems-c-uas 27. U. S. Counter-UAS Systems - Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/air-defense/u-s-air-defense/u-s-counter-uas-systems/ 28. Anti Drone Detection System - Hinaray, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://hinaray.com/anti-drone-system/ 29. Drone Signal Jamming & Interference - Fly Eye, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.flyeye.io/drone-technology-signal-jamming/ 30. Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems - CUAS - SAIC, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.saic.com/cuas 31. GNSS Interference - Safety First | Airbus, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/gnss-interference/ 32. Advancing the U. S. Army’s Counter-UAS Mission Command Systems to Keep Pace with Modern Warfare, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2024/MJ-24-Modern-Warfare/ 33. Breaking the Formation: The Impact of GNSS Spoofing on UAV Swarms - Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://insidegnss.com/breaking-the-formation-the-impact-of-gnss-spoofing-on-uav-swarms/ 34. Tree-based Supervised Machine Learning Models For Detecting GPS Spoofing Attacks on UAS, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10354714 35. Jamming and Spoofing Protection for UAVs Using GNSS Signals, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://safran-navigation-timing.com/jamming-and-spoofing-protection-for-uavs-using-gnss-signals/ 36. GPS Spoofing Detection Method for Small UAVs Using 1D Convolution Neural Network, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/23/9412 37. Unmanned Aircraft Capture and Control via GPS Spoofing - University of Texas at Austin, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://rnl.ae.utexas.edu/images/stories/files/papers/unmannedCapture.pdf 38. SemperFi: Anti-spoofing GPS Receiver for UAVs - Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) Symposium, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-71-paper.pdf 39. GNSS Interference, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.ion.org/gnss/upload/files/2157_Septentrio_GNSS_Interference_A5_LR.pdf 40. GNSS Anti-Spoofing: Jamming and Spoofing Protection For GNSS Signals In Defense Applications - Safran - Navigation & Timing, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://safran-navigation-timing.com/jamming-spoofing-protection-for-gnss-signals-in-defense-applications/ 41. AIM+ Anti-Spoofing Protection - Septentrio, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.septentrio.com/en/learn-more/advanced-positioning-technology/aim-anti-spoofing-protection 42. GNSS Interference in Wildlife | GPSPATRON.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://gpspatron.com/gnss-interference-from-wildlife/ 43. OSNMA: the latest in GNSS anti-spoofing security - Septentrio, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.septentrio.com/en/learn-more/insights/osnma-latest-gnss-anti-spoofing-security 44. NADODE - Drone Navigation with GNSS Interference Monitoring in GNSS Denied Environment - Sicherheitsklammer | FORTE - Verteidigungsforschungsprogramm, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.forte-bmf.at/en/financed-proposals/detail/nadode/ 45. SemperFi: Anti-spoofing GPS Receiver for UAVs - NDSS Symposium, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/auto-draft-220/ 46. QUADFormer: Learning-based Detection of Cyber Attacks in Quadrotor UAVs - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.00707v1 47. A Survey of GNSS Spoofing and Anti-Spoofing Technology - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/19/4826 48. GPS Anti-Jam Technology | Anti-Spoofing for UAV & Drones, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/expo/anti-jamming-technology/ 49. Selecting Optimal Anti-Spoofing and Anti-Jamming Techniques for Resilient GNSS | GPSPATRON.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://gpspatron.com/selecting-optimal-anti-spoofing-and-anti-jamming-techniques-for-resilient-gnss/ 50. GPS Spoofing Detection Method for Small UAVs - cuashub.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cuashub.com/en/content/gps-spoofing-detection-method-for-small-uavs/ 51. 5 counter-drone technologies to watch in 2025 - cuashub.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cuashub.com/en/content/5-counter-drone-technologies-to-watch-in-2025/ 52. RF Jamming - cuashub.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cuashub.com/en/glossary/rf-jamming/ 53. Types of Signal Jamming for Drones: Techniques and Tools - SZMID, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.szmidjammer.com/blog/signal-jamming-for-drones/ 54. Drone RF Jammers | Drone Signal Jamming - Unmanned Systems Technology, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/expo/drone-rf-jammers/ 55. Jammers and Spoofers | Non-Kinetic Counter-Drone Technology - AirSight, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.airsight.com/knowledge-hub/counter-drone-technology/jammers-and-spoofers 56. Comprehensive Guide to Counter-Drone Mitigation Technologies, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://d-fendsolutions.com/cuas-mitigation/ 57. A Lightweight AI-Based Approach for Drone Jamming Detection - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/17/1/14 58. Drones Resilience Testing with Multi-Band RF Jammer Simulator | GPSPATRON.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://gpspatron.com/drones-resilience-testing-with-multi-band-rf-jammer-simulator/ 59. Jamming Detection and Classification in OFDM-based UAVs via Feature- and Spectrogram-tailored Machine Learning - Digital Commons @ Michigan Tech, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=35041&context=michigantech-p 60. Electronic Warfare Cyberattacks, Countermeasures and Modern Defensive Strategies of UAV Avionics: A Survey - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2504.07358v1 61. RF Jamming - SPX Communication Technologies, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.tcibr.com/rf-jamming/ 62. Detecting Drones Using a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzer - Tektronix, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.tek.com/en/documents/application-note/detecting-drones-using-real-time-spectrum-analyzer 63. Methods for Drone Detection and Jamming - Eventiotic, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.eventiotic.com/eventiotic/files/Papers/URL/f07e8f39-5c16-420e-b0e3-5eb5b5ab1ba0.pdf 64. Counter UAS Technology USA - SAE Media Group, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.smgconferences.com/defence/northamerica/conference/counter-uas-tech 65. C-UAS Hub: Counter-UAS products, services, news and resources, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cuashub.com/en/ 66. tesorrells/RF-Drone-Detection - GitHub, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://github.com/tesorrells/RF-Drone-Detection 67. Anti-Drone Systems & Solutions How to counter unauthorized drones - Dedrone, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.dedrone.com/solutions 68. C-UAS RF - BlueHalo, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://bluehalo.com/c-uas-autonomous-systems/c-uas-rf/ 69. Classification of UAVs Using RF Fingerprints - cuashub.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cuashub.com/en/content/classification-of-uavs-using-rf-fingerprints/ 70. Detection and Classification of UAVs Using RF Fingerprints in the Presence of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Interference - ResearchGate, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337551346_Detection_and_Classification_of_UAVs_Using_RF_Fingerprints_in_the_Presence_of_Wi-Fi_and_Bluetooth_Interference 71. Products - Black River Systems Company, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.blackriversystems.com/product/ 72. RF Techniques for Detection, Classification and Location of Commercial Drone Controllers, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2019/05/rf-techniques-for-detection-classification-and-location-of-commercial-drone-controllers/ 73. Counter UAV - Mistral Inc, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mistralinc.com/what-we-offer/counter-uav/ 74. Custom Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) - SZMID, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.szmidjammer.com/product-category/anti-drone/c-uas/ 75. Radar Spectrum Analysis and Machine Learning-Based Classification for Identity-Based Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Detection and Authentication - The Science and Information (SAI) Organization, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume15No12/Paper_60-Radar_Spectrum_Analysis_and_Machine_Learning.pdf 76. What are the Different Drone Detection Techniques? - everything RF, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.everythingrf.com/community/what-are-the-different-drone-detection-techniques 77. A Comprehensive Survey of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Detection and Classification Using Machine Learning Approach: Challenges, Solutions, and Future Directions - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/5/879 78. Effective Intrusion Detection for UAV Communications using Autoencoder-based Feature Extraction and Machine Learning Approach - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.02827v1 79. Dedrone by Axon: Counter-Drone Defense Solutions & Systems, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.dedrone.com/ 80. Secure Drone Communication → Term - Prism → Sustainability Directory, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://prism.sustainability-directory.com/term/secure-drone-communication/ 81. Drone Control - Ground Control Station - AirSight, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.airsight.com/learn/airspace-security/drone-fundamentals/drone-control-ground-control-station 82. Protect Your Drone: Essential Tips for Securing Your C2 Link, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://eudroneport.com/blog/c2-link-2/ 83. Strong Electromagnetic Interference and Protection in UAVs - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/2/393 84. Breaking the Shield: Countering Drone Defenses, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3838997/breaking-the-shield-countering-drone-defenses/ 85. Machine Learning-Based Delay-Aware UAV Detection and Operation Mode Identification Over Encrypted Wi-Fi Traffic - Emory Computer Science, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cs.emory.edu/~lzhao41/materials/papers/08933072.pdf 86. Drone Security and the Mysterious Case of DJI’s DroneID, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-217-paper.pdf 87. Securing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Encrypting MAVLink Protocol | Request PDF, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368516443_Securing_Unmanned_Aerial_Vehicles_by_Encrypting_MAVLink_Protocol 88. MUVIDS: False MAVLink Injection Attack Detection in Communication for Unmanned Vehicles - Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) Symposium, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/autosec2021_23036_paper.pdf 89. Lightweight Digital Signature Solution to Defend Micro Aerial Vehicles Against Man-in-the-Middle Attack - Cong Pu, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://congpu.github.io/document/paper/ieee_cse_2020.pdf 90. MAVLink Developer Guide, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://mavlink.io/en/ 91. Robust Low-Cost Drone Detection and Classification Using Convolutional Neural Networks in Low SNR Environments - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.18624 92. RUB-SysSec/DroneSecurity - GitHub, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://github.com/RUB-SysSec/DroneSecurity 93. deptofdefense/porglet: porglet development repo - GitHub, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://github.com/deptofdefense/porglet 94. A review of algorithms, methods, and techniques for detecting UAVs and UAS using audio, radiofrequency, and video applications - Redalyc, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3442/344263272014/html/ 95. D-Fend Solutions Discusses RF Cyber Takeover C-UAS Technology, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/feature/d-fend-solutions-discusses-rf-cyber-takeover-c-uas-technology/ 96. Evaluating & Comparing Counter-Drone (C-UAS) Detection Technologies - YouTube, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5PeMjPpns 97. D Fend Solutions | Advanced Counter Drone Technology, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://d-fendsolutions.com/ 98. Proven and Effective Counter-drone Technology and Solutions, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://sentrycs.com/ 99. UAV Detection and Identification: A Comparative Review of Current Methods and Future Directions - Atlantis Press, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/126010062.pdf 100. Guidance on SDR-based RF Fingerprinting Project (Drone Tracking & Cybersecurity Applications) : r/RTLSDR - Reddit, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/RTLSDR/comments/1k0u2zw/guidance_on_sdrbased_rf_fingerprinting_project/ 101. Optimized Radio Frequency Footprint Identification Based on UAV Telemetry Radios - PMC, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11359342/ 102. Detection and Classification of UAVs Using RF Fingerprints in the Presence of Interference - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.05429 103. Radio Frequency Fingerprinting Driven Drone Identification Based on Complex-valued CNN - EUDL, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://eudl.eu/pdf/10.4108/eai.27-8-2020.2295045 104. Micro-UAV Detection and Classification from RF Fingerprints Using Machine Learning Techniques - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.07703 105. RF-Based UAV Detection and Identification Using Hierarchical Learning Approach - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/6/1947 106. Drone Security - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Drone_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html 107. MAVLink Basics — Dev documentation - ArduPilot, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://ardupilot.org/dev/docs/mavlink-basics.html 108. Reference Method for assessing Cellular C2 Link Performance and RF Environment Characterization for - GSMA, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.gsma.com/smartmobility/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ACJA_WT2-Reference-Method-for-Measurements-v1.0-final-1.pdf 109. Drone Communication - Data Link - AirSight, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.airsight.com/learn/airspace-security/drone-fundamentals/drone-communication-data-link 110. Adversarial Challenges in Network Intrusion Detection Systems: Research Insights and Future Prospects - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2409.18736v3 111. Open Source IDS Tools: Comparing Suricata, Snort, Bro (Zeek), Linux - LevelBlue, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://levelblue.com/blogs/security-essentials/open-source-intrusion-detection-tools-a-quick-overview 112. Detecting Denial of Service Attacks (DoS) over the Internet of Drones (IoD) Based on Machine Learning - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/3/56 113. Enhanced Intrusion Detection in Drone Networks: A Cross-Layer Convolutional Attention Approach for Drone-to-Drone and Drone-to-Base Station Communications - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/1/46 114. A Review of the Duality of Adversarial Learning in Network Intrusion: Attacks and Countermeasures - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2412.13880v1 115. An Intrusion Detection Model for Drone Communication Network in SDN Environment, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/6/11/342 116. Optimized Detection of Cyber-Attacks on IoT Networks via Hybrid Deep Learning Models, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2502.11470v1 117. Cyber Security issues and Blockchain-Deep Learning based solutions for UAV and Internet of Drones (FANETs) - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2404.16848v1 118. The Application of Unmanned Aerial Systems In Surface Transportation - Volume II-F: Drone Cyber Security: Assurance Methods and Standards, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.umasstransportationcenter.org/Document.asp?DocID=867 119. Controller Area Network Intrusion Detection for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Reek Majumder Ph. D. Candidate, G - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.02539? 120. Intrusion Detection Systems for Networked Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Survey - People - Virginia Tech, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://people.cs.vt.edu/~irchen/ps/iwcmc18.pdf 121. ML-based Intrusion Detection for Drone IoT Security - ASPG, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.americaspg.com/article/download/2843 122. A Zero-Trust Model for Intrusion Detection in Drone Networks - The Science and Information (SAI) Organization, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume14No11/Paper_54-A_Zero_Trust_Model_for_Intrusion_Detection.pdf 123. Machine Learning for Intrusion Detection into Unmanned Aerial System 6G Networks - Scholarly Commons, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1855&context=edt 124. Securing unmanned autonomous systems from cyber threats - Cal State Fullerton, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.fullerton.edu/cybersecurity/_resources/pdfs/Securing%20Unmanned%20Autonomous%20Systems.pdf 125. Advancing Cyber-Attack Detection in Power Systems: A Comparative Study of Machine Learning and Graph Neural Network Approaches This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) and performed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), operated for the U. S. DOE - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2411.02248v1 126. Distributed Intrusion Detection in Dynamic Networks of UAVs using Few-Shot Federated Learning - arXiv, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2501.13213v1 127. LightMAN: A Lightweight Microchained Fabric for Assurance- and Resilience-Oriented Urban Air Mobility Networks - NSF Public Access Repository, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10485692 128. Enhancing unmanned aerial vehicle and smart grid communication security using a ConvLSTM model for intrusion detection | Energy Central, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://energycentral.com/news/enhancing-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-and-smart-grid-communication-security-using-convlstm-model 129. Enforcing MAVLink Safety & Security Properties Via Refined Multiparty Session Types, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2501.18874v2 130. Drone Detection and Classification Using Physical-Layer Protocol Statistical Fingerprint - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9460464/ 131. Ground Control Stations: The Lifeblood of Remotely Piloted Aircraft - Trenton Systems, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.trentonsystems.com/en-us/resource-hub/blog/ground-control-stations 132. (PDF) A Review on Drone Ground Control Station, Configurations, Types and the Communication Systems - ResearchGate, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385847660_A_Review_on_Drone_Ground_Control_Station_Configurations_Types_and_the_Communication_Systems 133. Mavlink、DDS and uORB - ArduCopter - ArduPilot Discourse, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/mavlink-dds-and-uorb/128456 134. Latency Reduction and Packet Synchronization in Low-Resource Devices Connected by DDS Networks in Autonomous UAVs - MDPI, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/22/9269 135. mavlink-router/mavlink-router: Route mavlink packets between endpoints - GitHub, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://github.com/mavlink-router/mavlink-router 136. uXRCE-DDS (PX4-ROS 2/DDS Bridge) | PX4 Guide (main), accessed on April 29, 2025, https://docs.px4.io/main/en/middleware/uxrce_dds.html 137. The Counter UAS Directory and Buyer’s Guide - Unmanned airspace, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.unmannedairspace.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Counter-UAS-directory.-April-2023.v2.pdf 138. Army seeks more than $400M in fiscal 2025 for systems to counter small drones, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://defensescoop.com/2024/03/11/army-counter-drone-systems-funding-fiscal-2025/ 139. EFFICACY IN LOW-COST KINETIC APPREHENSION COUNTER DRONE SYSTEM, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://hammer.purdue.edu/articles/thesis/_b_EFFICACY_IN_LOW-COST_KINETIC_APPREHENSION_COUNTER_DRONE_SYSTEM_b_/26359429 140. Anti-Drone (C-UAS) Technologies: A Fresh Look, A New Comparison, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://d-fendsolutions.com/blog/anti-drone-c-uas-technologies-a-fresh-look-a-new-comparison/ 141. DJI Drone DroneID Signal Hacked Using SDR - Identifies Operator Location - EEVblog, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/dji-drone-droneid-signal-hacked-using-sdr-identifies-operator-location/ 142. DroneRF | This repository contains all MATLAB and Python codes used for Drones Detection and Identification using their RF signals. - GitHub Pages, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://al-sad.github.io/DroneRF/ 143. cyber-defence-campus/RemoteIDReceiver: Web application to monitor drones based on the Remote ID technology, including DJI DroneID, developed as part of a Bachelor´s thesis project. - GitHub, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://github.com/cyber-defence-campus/RemoteIDReceiver 144. Could hackrf potentially be used to detect military drone presence or approach from say 30-100km with good antennas? Thinking if Ukrainians could use this tech to beef up their defense cheaply? - Reddit, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/hackrf/comments/1986yyf/could_hackrf_potentially_be_used_to_detect/ 145. Distinguishing signals Wifi vs Drone : r/sdr - Reddit, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/sdr/comments/1gyhpv3/distinguishing_signals_wifi_vs_drone/ 146. Using C MAVLink Libraries (mavgen), accessed on April 29, 2025, https://mavlink.io/en/mavgen_c/ 147. Open Drone ID - MAVLink Guide, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://mavlink.io/en/services/opendroneid.html 148. ROS2/Microdds support wish list · Issue #20981 · PX4/PX4-Autopilot - GitHub, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/issues/20981 149. MAVLink Messaging | PX4 Guide (main), accessed on April 29, 2025, https://docs.px4.io/main/en/middleware/mavlink.html 150. Ayushkumawat/Advanced-Aerial-Drone-Detection-System - GitHub, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://github.com/Ayushkumawat/Advanced-Aerial-Drone-Detection-System 151. Layered anti-drone solutions integrate drone detection radars - Dedrone, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.dedrone.com/products/drone-detection/extensions/radar 152. Bird & Drone Detection Radar Systems | Robin Radar, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.robinradar.com/ 153. How RF-enabled C-UAS enhances Advanced Air Mobility - CRFS, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.crfs.com/blog/how-rf-enabled-c-uas-enhances-advanced-air-mobility 154. UAS vs UAV vs Drones: What are They and How Do You Detect Them, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.robinradar.com/blog/uas-vs-uav-vs-drones 155. Drone Detection Radar | C-UAS Radar Systems - Unmanned Systems Technology, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/expo/drone-detection-radar/ 156. Counter-UAS Radar - Echodyne, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.echodyne.com/applications/defense/counter-uas-radar/ 157. Vendors - cuashub.com, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://cuashub.com/en/vendors/ 158. CounterUAS | Anduril, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.anduril.com/capability/counter-uas/ 159. Counter-UAS Technology - SRC, Inc., accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.srcinc.com/products/counter-uas/counter-uas-technology.html 160. The SkyDome® System - Fortem Technologies, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://fortemtech.com/products/ 161. MyDefence: C-UAS Solutions for Drone Detection and Jamming, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://mydefence.com/ 162. Global Counter-UAS Directory and Buyer’s Guide - Unmanned airspace, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.unmannedairspace.info/counter-uas-industry-directory/ 163. Counter-UAV (C-UAV) Systems - Market and Technology Forecast to 2030 | Reports, accessed on April 29, 2025, https://www.marketforecast.com/reports/counter-uav-c-uav-systems-market-and-technology-forecast-to-2030-1218

Operational Detection Techniques For Drone Interference

📖 Reading Mode

📖 Table of Contents