A very interesting paper entitled Rocking Drones with Intentional Sound Noise of Gyroscopic Sensors. A MultiWii and APM drone were tested. One went down (see below for answer as to which):
Abstract
Sensing and actuation systems contain sensors to observe the environment and actuators to influence it. However, these sensors can be tricked by maliciously fabricated physical properties. In this paper, we investigated whether an adversary could incapacitate drones equipped with Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) gyroscopes using intentional sound noise. While MEMS gyroscopes are known to have resonant frequencies that degrade their accuracy, it is not known whether this property can be exploited maliciously to disrupt the operation of drones. We first tested 15 kinds of MEMS gyroscopes against sound noise and discovered the resonant frequencies of seven MEMS gyroscopes by scanning the frequencies under 30 kHz using a consumer-grade speaker. The standard deviation of the resonant output from those gyroscopes was dozens of times larger than that of the normal output. After analyzing a target drone’s flight control system, we performed real-world experiments and a software simulation to verify the effect of the crafted gyroscope output. Our real-world experiments showed that in all 20 trials, one of two target drones equipped with vulnerable gyroscopes lost control and crashed shortly after we started our attack. A few interesting applications and countermeasures are discussed at the conclusion of this paper.
Answer:
Comments
Interesting article, but the sound level required is quite high (97 dB), stronger than a lawn mower at 1 meter : http://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-quiet-is-this-lawn-mower/
If the targeted drone is at 128m, a sound source of 97 + (7*6) dB = 139dB will be required, which is more than a jet taking off at 100 m : http://noiselimiters.co.uk/buy/noise-levels-what-is-noise.php
So we could say the sound power level required is superior to a jet taking off, and this is only for a distance of 100 meter. If the target is farther, higher power will be required. Of course all people around the sound source will have to wear good ear protections. Well, I think the operator will become crazy or deaf or both in a matter of seconds.
In addition it isn't very difficult to add a layer of acoustic isolation around the gyro sensor (or the whole board). I wonder if there will be any real use of this concept.
What's interesting is that an original weak point is identified.
This is the reason because on VR Brain 5 i deprecated the use of
In the old VR Brain 4.0 i used it but after a lot of flight test i decided to don't use inside my design. I don't understand why in PX4 and Pixhawk decide to use it .
But all the ST series had this kind of problem ... infact at the begin of the Pixhawk project need to add a MPU6000 for have better INS performances .
@Robert i agree with you the EKF cannot work fine with sensor with this kind of problem that mean that on px4 or pixhawk a strange vibration or sound noise can change the attitude estimation ...
Very interesting. I was going to assume the double-IMU with EKF did it's job, then realized that they tested an APM, so none of that applies. I wonder then, why the difference?
8200 Hz at 97 dB? You will at least hear where it is coming from.
Here is a picture of a MDTU (Mobile Drone Takedown Unit) :)
hahahahaaha love the click bait!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next