[time-nuts] GPS Spoofing

Sat Jul 27 14:43:15 UTC 2013

People screw up. Period. The Costa Concordia, that Talgo train driver in
Spain, pilots fly into the ground as in San Francisco, just to name a few.

IMO, putting all one's eggs in the GPS basket is simply foolish,
especially when a continuous cross-check with an independant nav system
can be implemented, probably for lest cost than a dinner at the Captain's
Table.

I was a guest on the bridge of a ship as it went through the Straights of
Gibralter and the Captain was using RADAR, Peloris sights, and multiple
lookouts. Suspenders and a belt.

The modern supertankers and container ships probably don't do that. The
highly automated ships don't carry a lot of crew.

-John

=================

> As a (former) Naval Officer, I will tell you that a competent mariner
> should always be using and cross-checking /all /sources -- GPS, radar,
> dead reconing, /looking out the window/, and even celestial in open ocean.
>
> (I frequently had to remind my junior officers that nobody ever ran
> aground or collided with another ship from spending too much time
> looking out the window.  Way too easy to get their heads stuck in the
> radar or the GPS map.
>
> 73,
> Jim
> wb4gcs at amsat.org
>
> On 7/27/2013 9:43 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:
>> Key here is how does the captain know that GPS is no longer providing an
>> accurate fix?   You need 2 or more independent systems to cross check
>> each other.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:21 AM, Jim Lux <jimlux at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/13 8:45 PM, J. Forster wrote:
>>>> I gather from the article, the GPS position was spoofed and the
>>>> autopilot,
>>>> in bringing it back to where it was supposed to be, actually took it
>>>> off
>>>> course.
>>>>
>>>> There are places where a few hundred feet makes a big difference, viz.
>>>> the
>>>> Costa Concordia.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, this is a very convincing reason for something like LORAN.
>>> I think it's a convincing argument for a captain who pays attention to
>>> the other navigation instruments and doesn't blindly follow the GPS.
>>>
>>> It's also a convincing argument that shipboard
>>> automation/autopilot/autocontrol vendors need to make more
>>> sophisticated software (which I suspect they do, particularly on 200+
>>> foot ships.. I would imagine that there are some aspects of this demo
>>> that are contrived.)  The ship making and driving business is pretty
>>> unregulated. It's all about what the owner of the ship is willing to
>>> pay (or what he needs to get liability insurance, if he wants).
>>> There's nothing even remotely like DO-178 for shipboard stuff.
>>>
>>> The folks doing stabilized oil rigs probably have sophisticated
>>> systems, but they're also using IMUs and other stuff. Ditto for high
>>> value things (oil tankers, warships).  Molasses tankers? They're
>>> probably lucky to have a functioning compass and some old charts.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure, though, that looking at the big picture, whether your tax
>>> dollars are better spent on LORAN, or on some other precision
>>> navigation method or on making jam resistant GPS receivers (which do,
>>> in fact exist, and make use of things like direction of arrival of the
>>> signal..)
>>>
>>> Note that a GPS system with 3 antennas (as is common in systems that
>>> use GPS to derive attitude/orientation) would be extremely difficult to
>>> spoof, and would be VERY inexpensive to implement.  Either the carrier
>>> phases and code phases are consistent for all the received signals or
>>> they're not.  A jamming signal coming from the wrong direction will not
>>> have the right direction of arrival relative to the platform
>>> orientation.  One wrong signal might be tolerable (multipath, etc.) but
>>> with a multi satellite fix, I suspect it would be hard to do it.
>>>
>>> Sure, one could throw up N pseudolites on a bunch of UAVs, etc., but
>>> that's getting to be a bit noticeable.
>>>
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I don't know that LORAN has the performance to
>>> avoid a Costa Concordia type foul up (assuming they were crazy enough
>>> to do the near pass in the fog, so visual navigation didn't work)
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that LORAN had 1/4 nmi kinds of accuracy.  it would
>>> get you to the channel or mouth of the harbor, but not get you into
>>> your berth. You might be familiar with the local propagation anomalies
>>> and get better accuracy with experience in your local waters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -John
>>>>
>>>> =================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I boat?  The backup is a competent captain.  He'd see the compass
>>>>> heading
>>>>> move and quickly disengage the autopilot.   I had a boat for years
>>>>> I'd
>>>>> notice a 5 degree change.  Mine was a sailboat so I'd be more
>>>>> sensitive to
>>>>> heading changes than a power boater but still the human is the
>>>>> backup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most autopilots don't directly follow GPS, they use GPS to determine
>>>>> a
>>>>> heading, follow it then use GPS to detect drift and re-compute the
>>>>> heading.
>>>>>   the heading would be held by a compass sensor in a low-cost setup
>>>>> or in a
>>>>> larger setup a lazer ring gyro backed up by a compass.     So a
>>>>> spoofed
>>>>> GPS
>>>>> would cause the autopilot to "think" there was a bigger crooswnd or
>>>>> current
>>>>> and make a bigger heading change.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet you could hijack a drone not a manned vehicle the pilot is
>>>>> trained
>>>>> to
>>>>> monitor the automation and he'd very quickly turn it off thinking it
>>>>> was
>>>>> broken.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:41 AM, J. Forster <jfor at quikus.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Prof. Humphry from Texas just reported being able to spoof GPS in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Med
>>>>>> and take over the nav system of a luxury yacht. He's done this
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a drone in the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LORAN as a backup, at least?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==============
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>>>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Albertson
>>>>> Redondo Beach, California
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>