Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 73 references

Towards a Systematic Taxonomy of Attacks against Space Infrastructures

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-16 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes the first systematic taxonomy of attacks against and defenses for space infrastructures.

desk verdict This paper proposes a taxonomy for attacks and defenses on space infrastructures but its claim to be the first systematic one rests on an assertion without visible evidence of construction method or literature comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.12829 v2 submitted 2025-12-14 cs.CR

Jose Luis Castanon Remy , Shouhuai Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords spaceinfrastructurestaxonomyattacksdefensescybersecuritysecurityresilience
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquation
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

Space infrastructures are critical to the global economy and society but vulnerable to attacks including cyber attacks. There is currently no systematic understanding of these attacks or the defenses against them. The paper fills this gap by proposing the first systematic taxonomy. This would matter because it can guide systematic analysis of space security and inspire future research in the area.

What carries the argument

A systematic taxonomy that classifies attacks against space infrastructures and the corresponding defenses.

What would settle it

The existence of any earlier systematic taxonomy of attacks against space infrastructures would directly contradict the paper's claim of being the first.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that we fill the void by proposing the first systematic taxonomy of attacks against, and defenses for, space infrastructures. This taxonomy is intended to provide a structured framework for understanding threats and mitigation strategies in this emerging domain.

Load-bearing premise

That no prior systematic taxonomy of attacks and defenses for space infrastructures exists and that the proposed taxonomy is comprehensive and useful for guiding analysis.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that space infrastructures lack any systematic understanding of attacks or defenses, and fills this void by proposing the first systematic taxonomy of attacks against and defenses for space infrastructures, with the hope of inspiring community refinement.

Significance. If the taxonomy proves comprehensive, novel, and methodologically grounded, it could serve as a foundational reference for space security analysis and research prioritization. However, its significance is currently limited by the absence of evidence establishing its systematic construction or superiority over prior ad-hoc classifications in satellite and critical-infrastructure security.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The central claim that the work provides the 'first systematic taxonomy' rests on the unverified premise that 'there is neither a systematic understanding of these attacks... nor defenses.' No literature review section or comparison table is provided against existing taxonomies or attack lists for satellites, CPS, or space systems, making the novelty assertion unevaluable.
  2. [Taxonomy Development] No section describes the taxonomy construction process (bottom-up from incidents, top-down from threat models, or iterative refinement). Without an explicit methodology or validation against real attacks, it is impossible to assess whether the structure qualifies as systematic rather than ad-hoc grouping.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by briefly outlining the taxonomy's top-level categories or dimensions to convey its scope and structure to readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the claims of novelty and methodological rigor. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Introduction] The central claim that the work provides the 'first systematic taxonomy' rests on the unverified premise that 'there is neither a systematic understanding of these attacks... nor defenses.' No literature review section or comparison table is provided against existing taxonomies or attack lists for satellites, CPS, or space systems, making the novelty assertion unevaluable.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript would be strengthened by an explicit literature review and comparison table to better substantiate the novelty claim. While the abstract and introduction draw on our assessment of the field, we agree that a dedicated section surveying prior taxonomies and classifications in satellite security, cyber-physical systems, and critical infrastructure would make the positioning more rigorous and evaluable. In the revised version, we will add this section along with a comparison table. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Taxonomy Development] No section describes the taxonomy construction process (bottom-up from incidents, top-down from threat models, or iterative refinement). Without an explicit methodology or validation against real attacks, it is impossible to assess whether the structure qualifies as systematic rather than ad-hoc grouping.

    Authors: We agree that describing the taxonomy construction process is essential to establish its systematic character. The taxonomy was developed via an iterative combination of bottom-up review of documented incidents and top-down application of threat models from cybersecurity and space operations, with validation steps against real attacks. In the revision, we will add a dedicated section detailing this methodology, including sources, refinement process, and examples of validation against actual incidents. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: conceptual taxonomy proposal is self-contained

full rationale

The paper advances a new taxonomy of attacks and defenses for space infrastructures as its core contribution. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text. The claim of being the 'first systematic' taxonomy rests on an assertion of prior absence rather than any reduction of the taxonomy structure to prior fitted quantities or self-citations. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to the paper's own inputs; the taxonomy is presented as an independent organizing framework. This is the expected outcome for a purely conceptual classification paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the domain assumption that space infrastructures are uniquely vulnerable and lack prior systematic analysis; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Space infrastructures are critical to the global economy and society and are vulnerable to attacks including cyber attacks.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the motivation for needing a taxonomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards a Systematic Taxonomy of Attacks against Space Infrastructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2512.12829

@misc{pith2026251212829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards a Systematic Taxonomy of Attacks against Space Infrastructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2512.12829}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.12829}
}
read the original abstract

Space infrastructures represent an emerging domain that is critical to the global economy and society. However, this domain is vulnerable to attacks, including cyber attacks and other kinds of attacks. To enhance the resilience of this domain, we must understand these attacks that can be waged against it and the defenses that can be employed to mitigate these attacks. The status quo is that there is neither a systematic understanding of these attacks against, nor defenses for, space infrastructures, despite their clear importance in guiding systematic analysis of space security and future research. In this paper, we fill the void by proposing the first systematic taxonomy of attacks against, and defenses for, space infrastructures. We hope this paper will inspire a community effort at refining the taxonomy towards a widely used one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.12829 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The electromagnetic wave spectrum (adapted from [23]–[25]). ELF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. System model space infrastructures (adapted from [3]). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Taxonomy of counterspace attacks, describing their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Taxonomy of electromagnetic attacks, describing their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Taxonomy of cyber attacks against space infrastructures, describing their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Space foundation releases the space report 2022 q2 showing growth of global space economy,

    Space Foundation Editorial Team, “Space foundation releases the space report 2022 q2 showing growth of global space economy,” https://ww w.spacefoundation.org/2022/07/27/the-space-report-2022-q2/

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Space foundation releases the space report 2023 q2, showing growth of global space economy to $546b,

    Space Foundation Editorial Team, “Space foundation releases the space report 2023 q2, showing growth of global space economy to $546b,” ht tps://www.spacefoundation.org/2023/07/25/the-space-report-2023-q2/

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Sok: Space infrastructures vulnerabilities, attacks and defenses,

    J. L. C. Remy, E. Ear, C. Chang, A. Feffer, and S. Xu, “Sok: Space infrastructures vulnerabilities, attacks and defenses,” in2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1028–1046

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    A security risk taxonomy for commercial space missions,

    G. Falco and N. Boschetti, “A security risk taxonomy for commercial space missions,” inASCEND 2021, 2021, p. 4241

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Generalized likelihood ratio test for gnss spoofing detection in devices with imu,

    M. Ceccato, F. Formaggio, N. Laurenti, and S. Tomasin, “Generalized likelihood ratio test for gnss spoofing detection in devices with imu,” IEEE TIFS, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    A survey and analysis of the gnss spoofing threat and countermeasures,

    D. Schmidt, K. Radke, S. Camtepe, E. Foo, and M. Ren, “A survey and analysis of the gnss spoofing threat and countermeasures,”ACM CSUR, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Secure commu- nication in non-geostationary orbit satellite systems: A physical layer security perspective,

    Y . Xiao, J. Liu, Y . Shen, X. Jiang, and N. Shiratori, “Secure commu- nication in non-geostationary orbit satellite systems: A physical layer security perspective,”IEEE Access, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Physical-layer security in space information networks: A survey,

    B. Li, Z. Fei, C. Zhou, and Y . Zhang, “Physical-layer security in space information networks: A survey,”IEEE IoT-J, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on space-air- ground-sea integrated network security in 6g,

    H. Guo, J. Li, J. Liu, N. Tian, and N. Kato, “A survey on space-air- ground-sea integrated network security in 6g,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Satellite-based com- munications security: A survey of threats, solutions, and research challenges,

    P. Tedeschi, S. Sciancalepore, and R. Di Pietro, “Satellite-based com- munications security: A survey of threats, solutions, and research challenges,”Computer Networks, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    A survey of gnss spoofing and anti-spoofing technology,

    L. Meng, L. Yang, W. Yang, and L. Zhang, “A survey of gnss spoofing and anti-spoofing technology,”Remote Sensing, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Building a launchpad for satellite cyber- security research: lessons from 60 years of spaceflight,

    J. Pavur and I. Martinovic, “Building a launchpad for satellite cyber- security research: lessons from 60 years of spaceflight,”Journal of Cybersecurity, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Authenticating gnss civilian signals: A survey,

    M. Yuan, X. Tang, and G. Ou, “Authenticating gnss civilian signals: A survey,”Satellite Navigation, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Satellite navigation signal authentication in gnss: A survey on technology evolution, status, and perspective for bds,

    X. Chen, R. Luo, T. Liu, H. Yuan, and H. Wu, “Satellite navigation signal authentication in gnss: A survey on technology evolution, status, and perspective for bds,”Remote Sensing, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Orbital trust and privacy:{SoK}on{PKI}and location privacy challenges in space networks,

    D. Koisser, R. Mitev, N. Yadav, F. V ollmer, and A.-R. Sadeghi, “Orbital trust and privacy:{SoK}on{PKI}and location privacy challenges in space networks,” in33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), 2024, pp. 6093–6111

    2024

  8. [16]

    Cyber security in new space: Analysis of threats, key enabling technologies and challenges,

    M. Manulis, C. P. Bridges, R. Harrison, V . Sekar, and A. Davis, “Cyber security in new space: Analysis of threats, key enabling technologies and challenges,”International Journal of Information Security, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 287–311, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Characterizing cyber attacks against space systems with missing data: Framework and case study,

    E. Ear, J. L. C. Remy, A. Feffer, and S. Xu, “Characterizing cyber attacks against space systems with missing data: Framework and case study,” in2023 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–9

    2023

  10. [18]

    MITRE ATT&CK,

    MITRE Corporation, “MITRE ATT&CK,” https://attack.mitre.org/

  11. [19]

    SPARTA: Space Attack Research and Tactic Analysis,

    The Aerospace Corporation, “SPARTA: Space Attack Research and Tactic Analysis,” https://aerospace.org/sparta

  12. [20]

    Space threat landscape 2025,

    E. Rekleitis and M. Adamczyk, “Space threat landscape 2025,” 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Characterizing cyber attacks against space systems with missing data: Framework and case study,

    E. Ear, J. L. C. Remy, A. Feffer, and S. Xu, “Characterizing cyber attacks against space systems with missing data: Framework and case study,” inIEEE CNS, 2023, pp. 1–9

    2023

  14. [22]

    Quantifying and reducing system non- resilience: Methodology, metrics, and case study,

    J. L. C. Remy, E. Ear, and S. Xu, “Quantifying and reducing system non- resilience: Methodology, metrics, and case study,” inCyber Resilience: Applied Perspectives. Springer, 2025, pp. 75–103

    2025

  15. [23]

    The electromagnetic spectrum,

    J. Norgard and G. L. Best, “The electromagnetic spectrum,” inNational Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook. Routledge, 2017, pp. 3–10

    2017

  16. [24]

    ITU Recommendations V .431: Nomenclature of the frequency and wavelength bands used in telecommunications,

    ITU, “ITU Recommendations V .431: Nomenclature of the frequency and wavelength bands used in telecommunications,” https://www.itu.int/rec/ r-rec-v.431/en

  17. [25]

    IEEE 521-2002 - Standard Letter Designations for Radar- Frequency Bands,

    IEEE SA, “IEEE 521-2002 - Standard Letter Designations for Radar- Frequency Bands,” https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/521/768/

    2002

  18. [26]

    Space mission engineering: The new SMAD,

    J. R. Wertz, D. F. Everett, and J. J. Puschell, “Space mission engineering: The new SMAD,” 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Space threat assessment 2024,

    C. Swope, K. A. Bingen, M. Young, M. Chang, S. Songer, and J. Tammelleo, “Space threat assessment 2024,” 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Space threat assessment 2025,

    C. Swope, K. A. Bingen, M. Young, and K. Lafave, “Space threat assessment 2025,” 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Investigating the risks of debris-generating asat tests in the presence of megaconstellations,

    S. Thiele and A. C. Boley, “Investigating the risks of debris-generating asat tests in the presence of megaconstellations,”The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1797–1820, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Analysis of the 2007 chinese asat test and the impact of its debris on the space environment,

    T. Kelso, “Analysis of the 2007 chinese asat test and the impact of its debris on the space environment,” in8th Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, Maui, HI, vol. 7, 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    U.S. Direct Ascent Anti-Satellite Testing,

    Secure World Foundation, “U.S. Direct Ascent Anti-Satellite Testing,” https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66dcc6872f6ed23bce1db235/684aeb 6d1a0e4c493adcd92e Fact%20Sheet%202025 U.S.%20Direct-Ascen t%20Anti-Satellite%20Testing.pdf

  24. [32]

    Current and future trends in chinese counterspace capabil- ities,

    B. Weeden, “Current and future trends in chinese counterspace capabil- ities,”Proliferation Papers, vol. 62, p. 42, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Russian direct-ascent anti-satellite missile test creates significant, long-lasting space debris,

    United States Space Command, “Russian direct-ascent anti-satellite missile test creates significant, long-lasting space debris,” https://ww w.spacecom.mil/Newsroom/News/Article-Display/Article/2842957/russi an-direct-ascent-anti-satellite-missile-test-creates-significant-long-last/

  26. [34]

    Ballistic missile trajectory prediction using a state transition matrix,

    W. Harlin and D. A. Cicci, “Ballistic missile trajectory prediction using a state transition matrix,”Applied mathematics and computation, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 1832–1847, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    Us ballistic missile defense,

    J. Masters and G. Bruno, “Us ballistic missile defense,”Council on Foreign Relations, vol. 1, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Hypersonic weapons: Vulnerability to missile defenses and comparison to marvs,

    D. Wright and C. L. Tracy, “Hypersonic weapons: Vulnerability to missile defenses and comparison to marvs,”Science & Global Security, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 68–114, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    U.S. officials say Russia tested a new anti-satellite weapon,

    Spaceflight Now, “U.S. officials say Russia tested a new anti-satellite weapon,” https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/23/u-s-officials-say-russi a-tested-a-new-anti-satellite-weapon/

    2020

  30. [38]

    Orbital Debris Qaurterly News - September 2025,

    NASA, “Orbital Debris Qaurterly News - September 2025,” https://ww w.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/ODQNv29i3.pdf

    2025

  31. [39]

    A Chinese Satellite Just Grappled Another And Pulled It Out Of Orbit,

    TWZ, “A Chinese Satellite Just Grappled Another And Pulled It Out Of Orbit,” https://www.twz.com/44054/a-chinese-satellite-just-grapple d-another-and-pulled-it-out-of-orbit

  32. [40]

    W. N. Hess,The effects of high altitude explosions. National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration, 1964

    1964

  33. [41]

    Snyder, A

    D. Snyder, A. Putney, E. N. Leidy, G. S. Hartnett, and J. Bonomo,The Effects of High-Altitude Nuclear Explosions on Non-Military Satellites. RAND, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    U. S. C. on Extension to the Standard Atmosphere,US standard atmo- sphere, 1976. National Oceanic and Amospheric [sic] Administration, 1976

    1976

  35. [43]

    Earth’s Radiation Belts: The Hazards to Satellites and What Can Be Done to Mitigate the Risks?

    Reeves, Geoffrey D. and Delzanno, Gian Luca and Marksteiner, Quinn R, “Earth’s Radiation Belts: The Hazards to Satellites and What Can Be Done to Mitigate the Risks?” 2020, https://amostech.com/TechnicalPa pers/2020/Atmospherics-Space-Weather/Reeves.pdf

    2020

  36. [44]

    Particle-beam weapons system,

    C. Zhou and W. Qian, “Particle-beam weapons system,” in2014 IEEE International Conference on Control Science and Systems Engineering. IEEE, 2014, pp. 81–84

    2014

  37. [45]

    Space attack technology overview,

    Z. Liu, C. Lin, and G. Chen, “Space attack technology overview,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1544, no. 1. IOP Publishing, 2020, p. 012178

    2020

  38. [46]

    A comprehensive survey on cooperative relaying and jamming strategies for physical layer security,

    F. Jameel, S. Wyne, G. Kaddoum, and T. Q. Duong, “A comprehensive survey on cooperative relaying and jamming strategies for physical layer security,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2734–2771, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Jamming strategies for physical layer security,

    Y . Huo, Y . Tian, L. Ma, X. Cheng, and T. Jing, “Jamming strategies for physical layer security,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 148–153, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Taxonomy of physical layer jamming techniques and strategies for security enhancement in wireless communication: A com- prehensive survey,

    M. F. Shahid, K. Mehmood, M. Mohsin, A. Saleem, S. Yaqoob, and W. Bashir, “Taxonomy of physical layer jamming techniques and strategies for security enhancement in wireless communication: A com- prehensive survey,” 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    When satellites attack: Satellite-to-satellite cyber attack, defense and resilience,

    G. Falco, “When satellites attack: Satellite-to-satellite cyber attack, defense and resilience,” inASCEND 2020, 2020, p. 4014

    2020

  42. [50]

    Spacejam: Protocol-aware jamming attacks against space communica- tions,

    E. Salkield, S. K ¨ohler, S. Birnbach, M. Strohmeier, and I. Martinovic, “Spacejam: Protocol-aware jamming attacks against space communica- tions,” in18th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks, 2025, pp. 160–171

    2025

  43. [51]

    Protocol-aware radio frequency jamming in wi-fi and commercial wireless networks,

    A. Hussain, N. A. Saqib, U. Qamar, M. Zia, and H. Mahmood, “Protocol-aware radio frequency jamming in wi-fi and commercial wireless networks,”Journal of communications and networks, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 397–406, 2014. 9

    2014

  44. [52]

    Ground-to-satellite laser communication experiments,

    M. Toyoshima, Y . Takayama, T. Takahashi, K. Suzuki, S. Kimura, K. Takizawa, T. Kuri, W. Klaus, M. Toyoda, H. Kunimoriet al., “Ground-to-satellite laser communication experiments,”IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10–18, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    C. M. Payne,Principles of naval weapon systems. Naval Institute Press, 2006

    2006

  46. [54]

    Chaff cloud modeling and electromagnetic scattering properties estimation,

    J.-S. Kim, D.-Y . Lee, T.-H. Kim, and D.-W. Seo, “Chaff cloud modeling and electromagnetic scattering properties estimation,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 58 835–58 849, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Modeling and simulation of chaff cloud with random orientation and distribution,

    A. K. Pandey, “Modeling and simulation of chaff cloud with random orientation and distribution,” inIEEE MTT-S International Microwave and RF Conference. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–4

    2013

  48. [56]

    Death by a thousand cots: Dis- rupting satellite communications using low earth orbit constellations,

    F. Rawlins, R. Baker, and I. Martinovic, “Death by a thousand cots: Dis- rupting satellite communications using low earth orbit constellations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13514, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Spread Spectrum Satcom Hacking: Attacking The Glob- alStar Simplex Data Service,

    Colby Moore, “Spread Spectrum Satcom Hacking: Attacking The Glob- alStar Simplex Data Service,” https://blackhat.com/docs/us-15/material s/us-15-Moore-Spread-Spectrum-Satcom-Hacking-Attacking-The-Glo balStar-Simplex-Data-Service-wp.pdf

  50. [58]

    Max Headroom signal hijacking,

    Wikipedia, “Max Headroom signal hijacking,” https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Max Headroom signal hijacking

  51. [59]

    New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century, Directed Energy V olume

    D. M. G. R. Lamberson, “New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century, Directed Energy V olume.”

  52. [60]

    On the requirements for successful gps spoofing attacks,

    N. O. Tippenhauer, C. P ¨opper, K. B. Rasmussen, and S. Capkun, “On the requirements for successful gps spoofing attacks,” inProceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, 2011, pp. 75–86

    2011

  53. [61]

    Gps spoofing attacks in fanets: A systematic literature review,

    A. Altaweel, H. Mukkath, and I. Kamel, “Gps spoofing attacks in fanets: A systematic literature review,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 55 233–55 280, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Spoofing and anti- spoofing technologies of global navigation satellite system: A survey,

    Z. Wu, Y . Zhang, Y . Yang, C. Liang, and R. Liu, “Spoofing and anti- spoofing technologies of global navigation satellite system: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 165 444–165 496, 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    Internet-based social engineering psychology, attacks, and defenses: a survey,

    T. T. Longtchi, R. M. Rodriguez, L. Al-Shawaf, A. Atyabi, and S. Xu, “Internet-based social engineering psychology, attacks, and defenses: a survey,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 210–246, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Insights into iranian cyber espionage: Apt33 targets aerospace and energy sectors and has ties to destructive malware,

    J. O’Leary, J. Kimble, K. Vanderlee, and N. Fraser, “Insights into iranian cyber espionage: Apt33 targets aerospace and energy sectors and has ties to destructive malware,”Threat Research Blog, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Satellite hacking: A guide for the perplexed,

    J. Fritz, “Satellite hacking: A guide for the perplexed,”Culture Mandala, 2013

    2013

  58. [66]

    A tale of sea and sky on the security of maritime vsat communications,

    J. Pavur, D. Moser, M. Strohmeier, V . Lenders, and I. Martinovic, “A tale of sea and sky on the security of maritime vsat communications,” in2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2020

    2020

  59. [67]

    Space odyssey: An experimental software security analysis of satellites,

    J. Willbold, M. Schloegel, M. V ¨ogele, M. Gerhardt, T. Holz, and A. Abbasi, “Space odyssey: An experimental software security analysis of satellites,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Wannafly: An approach to satellite ransomware,

    G. Falco, R. Thummala, and A. Kubadia, “Wannafly: An approach to satellite ransomware,” in2023 IEEE 9th International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology (SMC-IT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 84–93

    2023

  61. [69]

    On detecting deception in space situational awareness,

    J. Pavur and I. Martinovic, “On detecting deception in space situational awareness,” inProceedings of ACM AsiaCCS, 2021, pp. 280–291

    2021

  62. [70]

    The cyber-asat: on the impact of cyber weapons in outer space,

    J. Pavur and I. Martinovic, “The cyber-asat: on the impact of cyber weapons in outer space,” in2019 11th International CyCon. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  63. [71]

    Dishing out dos: How to disable and secure the starlink user terminal,

    J. Smailes, E. Salkield, S. Birnbach, M. Strohmeier, and I. Martinovic, “Dishing out dos: How to disable and secure the starlink user terminal,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00582, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Developing scenarios sup- porting space-based ids,

    J. P. Thebarge, W. Henry, and G. Falco, “Developing scenarios sup- porting space-based ids,” inASCEND 2022. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2022, p. 4219

    2022

  65. [73]

    Exploiting buffer overflow vulnerabilities in software defined radios,

    S. D. Hitefield, M. Fowler, and T. C. Clancy, “Exploiting buffer overflow vulnerabilities in software defined radios,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Socia...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed May 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.