Adaptive Detection of On-Orbit Jamming for Securing GEO Satellite Links

Anouar Boumeftah; Gregory Falco; Gunes Karabulut Kurt; Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Frigon; Olfa Ben Yahia

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Adaptive Detection of On-Orbit Jamming for Securing GEO Satellite Links

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Machine learning catches on-orbit GEO jamming with 93–96 percent accuracy.

desk verdict Novel GEO on-orbit jamming scenario, but the detection accuracies are mostly a byproduct of the simulator's label leakage and undisclosed threshold fitting. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16588 v2 pith:5OVKYFCY submitted 2024-11-25 eess.SP

Anouar Boumeftah , Olfa Ben Yahia , Jean-François Frigon , Gregory Falco , Gunes Karabulut Kurt This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords geostationaryorbitsatellitejammingdetectionon-orbitrandomforestprincipalcomponentanalysisadaptivethresholdingtime-variantcommunicationsecurity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a maneuverable satellite in geostationary orbit can be detected when it jams a ground-to-satellite uplink, in both of the two attack modes the authors consider: staying fixed near the target, or moving along a trajectory over time. For the stationary mode, they claim a random forest classifier reaches only 70.6% accuracy on six signal features, and that applying principal component analysis to reduce those features to one dimension raises accuracy to 93.0%. For the time-variant mode, they claim an adaptive threshold method that tracks a rolling mean and standard deviation of signal quality and received power reaches 95.89% accuracy across 100 simulated attacker trajectories. The paper argues that orbital dynamics matter: a model trained on stationary geometry drops to 64.0±19.0% accuracy when applied to moving jammers. If these numbers hold for real interference, GEO operators gain a lightweight, scenario-specific way to tell a harmless neighbor from an active jammer.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a simulation-to-detection pipeline built from orbital geometry and two detector families. Systems Tool Kit (STK) generates attacker positions and trajectories; the communication model computes RSS and SJNR from free-space path loss, antenna gains, noise temperature, and an indicator that injects the attacker's signal exactly when the sample is labeled jammed. In the stationary branch, principal component analysis is applied to the six selected features (RSS, distance to target, total received power, amplitude mean, amplitude standard deviation, phase variance) to remove multicollinearity, and a random forest classifies the reduced representation. In the time-variant branch, the mechanism is an adaptive threshold: within a moving window, the mean and standard deviation of SJNR and total RSS set per-sample thresholds, with parameters alpha and beta controlling sensitivity, and a sample is flagged jammed if a threshold is crossed or the rate of change of either feature exceeds beta. The rate-of-change condition is what lets the time-variant detector track a moving attacker.

What would settle it

Measure the correlation between the signal-quality metric and independently assigned jamming labels on real or emulated GEO uplink recordings; the paper's stationary simulation shows -0.99, and if field data shows a materially weaker correlation the reported 93% and 95.89% accuracies will not transfer. A second check is to rerun the adaptive threshold method with the alpha and beta parameters varied on the same 100 trajectories, since the paper does not disclose their values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that on-orbit jamming of a GEO satellite link is detectable with high accuracy if the detector is matched to the attacker's mode. The received signal is modeled as a legitimate uplink plus noise plus an injected jamming term that switches on through an indicator variable, and the signal-to-jamming-and-noise ratio puts jamming power in the denominator, which gives the stationary data a nearly perfect negative correlation (-0.99) between the quality metric and the jamming label. In the stationary case, a PCA-augmented random forest using 100 estimators and depth 10 reaches 93.0% accuracy, 94% macro F1, and AUC 0.97, versus 70.6% without PCA. In the time-variant case, a moving-window adaptive threshold that flags samples when SJNR drops below a rolling mean minus an alpha-scaled standard deviation, when RSS rises above its rolling mean plus an alpha-scaled standard deviation, or when the rate of change of either feature exceeds a beta threshold, reaches 95.89% accuracy with balanced precision and recall. The paper also reports that the stationary-trained model does not transfer: applied to time-variant trajectories, it falls to 64.0±19.0% accuracy, which the authors use to motivate mode-matched detection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that jamming always announces itself in the simulated metrics as a clean drop in signal quality and a clean rise in received power, because the same equation that generates the data also assigns the labels; a real jammer whose interference does not produce that exact signature would break the detectors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A stationary-trained machine-learning detector should not be reused for moving jammers; the paper reports accuracy falling to 64.0±19.0% when that is attempted.
An adaptive threshold detector that needs only signal quality and received power can flag time-variant jamming with 95.89% accuracy across 100 random attacker trajectories.
PCA is doing real work in the stationary branch: it lifts a random-forest detector from 70.6% to 93.0% accuracy while reducing misclassifications from 294 to 70 instances.
Detection can be deployed onboard, on the ground, or as a hybrid; the paper recommends lightweight onboard processing for real-time awareness with ground-based analysis for deeper situational awareness.
The strong negative correlation between SJNR and the jamming label means a single quality metric carries most of the detection information in the stationary scenario.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the simulated labels are generated by the same model that produces the features, the cleanest extension is to test the same two detectors on independently labeled interference recordings; a sharp accuracy drop would expose how much of the reported performance comes from direct feature-label coupling rather than physics.
The adaptive threshold parameters alpha and beta are not reported, so an obvious next experiment is a sensitivity sweep over those two values; an accuracy plateau would support the method, while a narrow tuned peak would suggest the 95.89% figure is dataset-specific.
The same rate-of-change logic could be transferred to lower orbits, where relative geometry changes faster; the moving-window threshold would likely trigger more often, but ordinary geometry changes might also create more false alarms.
The paper's stationary-versus-time-variant comparison suggests a hybrid design combining a lightweight threshold trigger with a machine-learning classifier could give both low latency and confidence scores, a direction the authors flag as future work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: this paper is worth a read if you care about the scenario, but the headline accuracies (93% and 95.89%) do not survive scrutiny. The novel part is real: a maneuverable GEO satellite jamming another GEO satellite's uplink, with both stationary and time-variant modes, is not covered in the cited ground-jammer literature. The STK-based trajectory simulation and the explicit comparison of a stationary-trained model on time-variant data are useful. The acknowledgment that the stationary model transfers poorly (Table IV: 64±19% accuracy) is honest.

The soft spot is load-bearing. In Eq. (1), the label f_k directly injects the jamming signal into the received sample. All stationary features (RSS, total power, amplitude stats) are computed from that same r_k, and the same f_k is the ground truth. Fig. 5a shows sjnr_at_target correlates -0.99 with the label. A random forest will find that offset without learning anything about orbital dynamics. The time-variant adaptive threshold is the same story: the detector thresholds on SJNR/RSS while the labels are synthetic drops/spikes in exactly those features. So the reported accuracies are consistent with the simulator's internal rule, not with a robust detector for a real jammer that might not produce such clean covariation.

Also missing: α, β, and window size W are not reported, no train/validation/threshold-tuning split is described, and Table V has no error bars or cross-validation across trajectories. The paper's own Fig. 7b shows a wide accuracy distribution (roughly 0.75–1.0), so the single 95.89% number overstates stability. No code or data is shared, which would have helped.

Verdict: the scenario is worth pursuing, but this draft is a simulation study whose results are not validated as detection claims. It deserves a serious referee only if the authors can break the circularity—e.g., use an independent jamming waveform model, hold out entire attacker configurations, and disclose the threshold parameters and tuning procedure. As it stands, I would not cite the accuracy numbers. I'd still send it to review because the scenario and honest negative transfer result are useful to the community, but it needs major revision.

Recommendation: engage, but require the label/feature decoupling and full parameter disclosure before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses on-orbit jamming of a GEO satellite uplink by a maneuverable GEO attacker, considering both a stationary jammer and a time-variant jammer. The authors generate trajectories and link metrics with STK, then propose a PCA-augmented random forest for the stationary case and an adaptive threshold method based on SJNR and RSS for the time-variant case. Reported results are 93% accuracy for the stationary model (Table III) and 95.89% for the time-variant model (Table V). The paper also includes a case study of anomalous proximity maneuvers and a brief discussion of onboard versus ground-based deployment.

Significance. If the reported accuracies were supported by a sound evaluation, the paper would be a useful contribution to satellite communication security, particularly for the understudied scenario of space-based jammers in GEO. The authors deserve credit for building an STK-based simulation pipeline, modeling realistic link parameters, and honestly reporting that the stationary-trained model degrades sharply on time-variant data in Table IV. However, the central validation is not convincing: the synthetic data generation directly ties the ground-truth jamming label to the features used for detection, and key adaptive-threshold parameters are not disclosed. The claimed accuracies are therefore consistent with the simulator's internal labeling rule rather than with a demonstrated ability to detect a real jammer that may not produce such clean feature changes.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III-B, Eq. (1), and Fig. 5(a)] The received signal model in Eq. (1) injects the jamming signal s_A,k multiplied by the indicator f_k, and the same f_k is later used as the ground-truth label for both the stationary classifier and the time-variant threshold evaluation. The SJNR definition in Sec. III-B places the jamming power in the denominator, so the feature sjnr_at_target is almost perfectly correlated with the label (correlation -0.99 in Fig. 5(a)). As a result, both the random forest and the adaptive threshold can achieve high accuracy by detecting the injected power/amplitude offset rather than by learning a physically meaningful orbital-dynamics signature. This makes the headline numbers in Tables III and V uninterpretable as evidence of real-world jamming detection, and it is the load-bearing weakness of the paper.
[Sec. IV-B, Eqs. (4)-(5), and Table V] The adaptive threshold method depends on the threshold multiplier alpha, the rate-of-change threshold beta, and the moving window size W, but none of these values is reported. There is also no sensitivity analysis, no train/validation/test split for tuning alpha and beta, and no cross-validation or error bars for Table V. Without this information, the 95.89% accuracy cannot be distinguished from overfitting to the synthetic data generator. The authors should report all parameter values, evaluate on trajectories not used to set them, and show how performance varies with alpha, beta, and W.
[Sec. V-A, Tables III-IV, and Fig. 5] The stationary random forest with PCA is evaluated on a single split, and the PCA configuration is described only as reduced to one dimension without stating whether PCA was fitted on the training set alone or on the full dataset. If PCA is fitted using the test data, that is a form of leakage that can inflate accuracy. In addition, Table IV shows that the same model achieves only 64% +/- 19% accuracy on the time-variant data, which directly contradicts the abstract's claim that the proposed methodology provides a 'robust solution' and demonstrates strong generalization. The authors should provide a proper hold-out evaluation, clarify the PCA fitting procedure, and temper the robustness claims.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. III-B] The notation lossT and lossA in Eq. (1) is not defined, and it is later replaced by FSPL_Uplink and FSPL_Attacker without an explicit mapping.
[Sec. IV-B] The same beta is used as the rate-of-change threshold for both SJNR and RSS, but these quantities have different units (dB and watts, respectively); the paper should explain how a single beta applies to both.
[Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] The captions are grammatically incomplete and do not explain the color scheme or what the lines represent, making it hard to interpret the orbital visualization.
[Sec. V-A, Tables II-III] The tables report training and test set sizes but not the random seed, the splitting strategy, or any confidence intervals; a single split is not sufficient to support the accuracy claims.
[Sec. V-A, Fig. 5] The selected features include total_phase_variance, which has near-zero correlation with the label, but no feature importance or ablation analysis is provided to justify its inclusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Reported detection accuracies reduce to the simulator's injection rule: f_k adds the jamming signal in Eq. (1), the same f_k is the label, and the features (SJNR, RSS, amplitude statistics) are computed from that constructed signal, with Fig. 5(a) showing corr(is_jammed, sjnr_at_target) = -0.99.

self definitional [Section III-B, Eq. (1); Section V-A, Fig. 5(a)]
"rk = sT,k√lossT + nk + fk · sA,k√lossA , (1) ... the indicator function fk takes the value of 1 when jamming is present at sample k and 0 otherwise. ... strong negative correlation between sjnrat target and is jammed, which indicates that these features may significantly impact jamming detection accuracy."

The ground-truth label f_k is the same switch that injects the attacker signal into r_k. The stationary classifier then receives features computed from r_k: RSS, total received power, amplitude mean/std, and phase variance, with SJNR defined using the jamming power in the denominator. In the simulation, non-jammed and jammed states differ only by the addition of f_k*s_A,k, so the features are deterministic functions of the label. Fig. 5(a) quantifies this: correlation between is_jammed and sjnr_at_target is -0.99, and with total_amplitude_std is 0.65. Training on this distribution and testing on the same generative rule measures how well the model inverts the simulator's own on/off mechanism, not how well it detects an independently observed physical jamming signature.
fitted input called prediction [Section IV-B, Eqs. (4)-(5) and detection criteria; Section V-B, Table V]
"ThresholdSJNR(k) = µSJNR(k) − α · σSJNR(k), (4) ThresholdRSS(k) = µRSS(k) + α · σRSS(k), (5) ... a jamming event is flagged if SJNR (k) < ThresholdSJNR(k) or RSS (k) > ThresholdRSS(k). ... Periodic jamming events are simulated at specific epochs, labeling data points as “jammed” or “non-jammed.”"

Time-variant labels are created by injecting jamming at selected epochs, which by Eq. (1) lowers SJNR and raises RSS. The adaptive detector thresholds exactly on SJNR and RSS, so the detection rule is the direct inverse of the event-generation rule. The 95.89% accuracy in Table V is therefore a measure of how well the chosen (undisclosed) α, β and window size W separate the synthetic events from synthetic non-events. Because no held-out threshold-tuning split, cross-validation, or independent jamming waveform is reported, the high accuracy is consistent with thresholds fitted to the same constructed feature-label relation rather than with a validated prediction for arbitrary on-orbit jamming.

full rationale

The core evaluation is contained in the STK simulation, and within that simulation the label f_k simultaneously generates the signal and defines the ground truth. Eq. (1) adds the jamming term only when f_k=1; SJNR is defined with the jamming power in the denominator; and the features used by both detectors are computed from the resulting r_k. The stationary random forest's 93% and the adaptive threshold's 95.89% thus reflect the invertibility of the same construction, as Fig. 5(a)'s -0.99 label-feature correlation makes explicit. The paper's Table IV is an honest internal control: the stationary-trained model drops to 64% on the time-variant distribution, confirming that the 93% figure is specific to the stationary generative setup rather than a robust physical detector. The adaptive-threshold parameters α, β and W are not disclosed, and no held-out tuning procedure is described, so the 95.89% cannot be distinguished from threshold overfitting to the synthetic events. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain; the circularity is internal to the data-generation equations. For these reasons the appropriate score is 7 rather than 0: the reported prediction accuracies reduce, by the paper's own equations, to the simulator's label-injection rule.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a synthetic simulation where the measured features (SJNR, RSS) are computed from the same jamming injection that defines the labels. This creates a strong feature-label correlation that a detector can exploit, so the reported accuracy is partly a test of the simulation's internal consistency rather than of real-world detection.

free parameters (5)

alpha (threshold multiplier) = not reported
Scales the standard deviation in Eqs. (4)-(5); its value is not given, but it directly controls detection sensitivity and is tuned on the data.
beta (rate-of-change threshold) = not reported
Sets the threshold for |SJNR(k)-SJNR(k-1)| and |RSS(k)-RSS(k-1)| in the detection criteria of Sec. IV-B.b. Value not disclosed; tuned per trajectory.
moving window size W = not reported
Used to compute the mean and standard deviation in the adaptive thresholds; value not given in the paper.
random forest hyperparameters = 100 estimators, max depth 10
Chosen by hand to prevent overfitting (Sec. V); not optimized with a validation curve.
PCA number of components = 1
The paper reports reducing to one dimension (Fig. 5c), but the criterion for choosing this number is not explained.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The received signal is the sum of the ground station signal, noise, and an optional jamming signal (Eq. (1)).
This linear additive model is common in communication theory but neglects multipath, nonlinearities, and antenna patterns.
domain assumption SJNR is defined with jamming power in the denominator (Sec. III-B).
This definition assumes a known jammer power; in reality the jammer power and its effect on the receiver may be unknown or masked.
domain assumption The ground station is located directly beneath the GEO target and maintains unobstructed line of sight (Sec. IV-A).
This idealization simplifies the link budget and removes atmospheric and terrain effects.
ad hoc to paper Jamming events occur in periodic, labeled epochs; the indicator f_k is known during training (Sec. III-C).
The label is generated by the simulation itself, and the features are computed from the same process, creating a direct feature-label link.
domain assumption The orbital dynamics of the attacker are modeled by STK-generated trajectories (Sec. IV-B).
STK provides a realistic propagation model, but the paper does not validate the trajectories against real ephemeris data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Detection of On-Orbit Jamming for Securing GEO Satellite Links." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OVKYFCY

@misc{pith2026241116588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Detection of On-Orbit Jamming for Securing GEO Satellite Links},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OVKYFCY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16588}
}

read the original abstract

This paper introduces a scenario where a maneuverable satellite in geostationary orbit (GEO) conducts on-orbit attacks, targeting communication between a GEO satellite and a ground station, with the ability to switch between stationary and time-variant jamming modes. We propose a machine learning-based detection approach, employing the random forest algorithm with principal component analysis (PCA) to enhance detection accuracy in the stationary model. At the same time, an adaptive threshold-based technique is implemented for the time-variant model to detect dynamic jamming events effectively. Our methodology emphasizes the need for the use of orbital dynamics in integrating physical constraints from satellite dynamics to improve model robustness and detection accuracy. Simulation results highlight the effectiveness of PCA in enhancing the performance of the stationary model, while the adaptive thresholding method achieves high accuracy in detecting jamming in the time-variant scenario. This approach provides a robust solution for mitigating the evolving threats to satellite communication in GEO environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16588 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Orbital maneuver patterns of Satellite X: longitude of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Orbital visualization of the 100 automatically generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Visualization of the 100 access links of the VOI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparative analysis of feature correlation and performance for the stationary model. (a) shows the correlation matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: ROC curve for the random forest model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Confusion matrix for the adaptive thresholding ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Security in space information networks,

C. Jiang, X. Wang, J. Wang, H.-H. Chen, and Y . Ren, “Security in space information networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 82–88, 2015

work page 2015
[2]

Case Study: Viasat,

CyberPeace Institute, “Case Study: Viasat,” https://cyberconflicts. cyberpeaceinstitute.org/law-and-policy/cases/viasat, 2022, accessed: 2024-11-1

work page 2022
[3]

Jamming analysis between non-cooperative mega-constellations based on satellite network capacity,

Y . Zhang, C. Han, F. Chu, W. Xiong, and L. Jia, “Jamming analysis between non-cooperative mega-constellations based on satellite network capacity,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 2330, 2024

2024
[4]

Securing cislunar missions: A location-based authentication approach,

N. Benchoubane, B. Donmez, O. Ben Yahia, and G. Karabulut Kurt, “Securing cislunar missions: A location-based authentication approach,” in Security for Space Systems (3S) , 2024, pp. 1–8

work page 2024
[5]

A secure architecture of relay-aided space information networks,

R. Han, L. Bai, C. Jiang, J. Liu, and J. Choi, “A secure architecture of relay-aided space information networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 88–94, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Analysis of reactive jamming against satellite communications,

M. Lichtman and J. H. Reed, “Analysis of reactive jamming against satellite communications,” International Journal of Satellite Communi- cations and Networking , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 195–210, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

On jamming detection methods for satellite Internet of Things networks,

G. Taricco and N. Alagha, “On jamming detection methods for satellite Internet of Things networks,” International Journal of Satellite Commu- nications and Networking , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 177–190, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Let me do it for you: On the feasibility of inter-satellite friendly jamming,

U. Planta, J. Rederlechner, G. Marra, and A. Abbasi, “Let me do it for you: On the feasibility of inter-satellite friendly jamming,” in 2024 Security for Space Systems (3S) , 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024

Show all 16 references

[9]

Dynamic anti-jamming coalition for satellite-enabled army IoT: A distributed game approach,

C. Han, A. Liu, H. Wang, L. Huo, and X. Liang, “Dynamic anti-jamming coalition for satellite-enabled army IoT: A distributed game approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 10 932–10 944, 2020

2020
[10]

LEO satellite downlink distributed jamming optimization method using a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm,

C. Tang, J. Ding, and L. Zhang, “LEO satellite downlink distributed jamming optimization method using a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm,” Remote Sensing , vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1006, 2024

2024
[11]

Jamming attack detection using machine learning algorithms in wireless network,

A. K and V . S, “Jamming attack detection using machine learning algorithms in wireless network,” International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT) , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–8, August 2022

2022
[12]

Detecting signal spoofing attack in UA Vs using machine learning models,

A. Shafique, A. Mehmood, and M. Elhadef, “Detecting signal spoofing attack in UA Vs using machine learning models,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 93 803–93 815, 2021

2021
[13]

Tree- based supervised machine learning models for detecting GPS spoofing attacks on UAS,

G. Aissou, H. O. Slimane, S. Benouadah, and N. Kaabouch, “Tree- based supervised machine learning models for detecting GPS spoofing attacks on UAS,” in Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) , 2021, pp. 0649–0653

2021
[14]

Satellite downlink jamming propagation measurements at ku-band,

C. A. Hofmann and A. Knopp, “Satellite downlink jamming propagation measurements at ku-band,” in IEEE Military Communications Confer- ence (MILCOM) , 2018, pp. 853–858

2018
[15]

Space system threats,

B. Garino and J. Gibson, “Space system threats,” in Space System Threats. USAF, 2009, ch. 21, pp. 273–281

2009
[16]

Environmental conditions for space flight hardware: A survey,

J. Plante and B. Lee, “Environmental conditions for space flight hardware: A survey,” https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060013394, 2005, accessed: 2024-11-13

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Security in space information networks,

C. Jiang, X. Wang, J. Wang, H.-H. Chen, and Y . Ren, “Security in space information networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 82–88, 2015

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Case Study: Viasat,

CyberPeace Institute, “Case Study: Viasat,” https://cyberconflicts. cyberpeaceinstitute.org/law-and-policy/cases/viasat, 2022, accessed: 2024-11-1

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Jamming analysis between non-cooperative mega-constellations based on satellite network capacity,

Y . Zhang, C. Han, F. Chu, W. Xiong, and L. Jia, “Jamming analysis between non-cooperative mega-constellations based on satellite network capacity,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 2330, 2024

2024

[4] [4]

Securing cislunar missions: A location-based authentication approach,

N. Benchoubane, B. Donmez, O. Ben Yahia, and G. Karabulut Kurt, “Securing cislunar missions: A location-based authentication approach,” in Security for Space Systems (3S) , 2024, pp. 1–8

work page 2024

[5] [5]

A secure architecture of relay-aided space information networks,

R. Han, L. Bai, C. Jiang, J. Liu, and J. Choi, “A secure architecture of relay-aided space information networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 88–94, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Analysis of reactive jamming against satellite communications,

M. Lichtman and J. H. Reed, “Analysis of reactive jamming against satellite communications,” International Journal of Satellite Communi- cations and Networking , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 195–210, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [7]

On jamming detection methods for satellite Internet of Things networks,

G. Taricco and N. Alagha, “On jamming detection methods for satellite Internet of Things networks,” International Journal of Satellite Commu- nications and Networking , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 177–190, 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Let me do it for you: On the feasibility of inter-satellite friendly jamming,

U. Planta, J. Rederlechner, G. Marra, and A. Abbasi, “Let me do it for you: On the feasibility of inter-satellite friendly jamming,” in 2024 Security for Space Systems (3S) , 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024