跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2603.04662 · v5

When Connectivity Is Not Enough: Cross-Layer Attacks on UAV C2 over 5G

当连通性不足够:5G 上无人机 C2 的跨层攻击

首次提交 2026-03-05 06:52
版本更新 2026-11-13 01:36
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:15
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations increasingly use 5G standalone (SA) networks for command and control (C2) between the UAV and the ground control station (GCS). The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has specified mechanisms for authentication and authorization of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in this architectural setting. As a result, operators may treat registration state, Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session status, and IP reachability as evidence that the C2 path is available. In practice, however, these connectivity indicators alone do not guarantee that closed-loop control remains operationally safe. Attacks can degrade UAS C2 when timeliness degrades under shared User Plane contention, mobility continuity fails during Control Plane instability, or command integrity is violated at a trusted next-generation Node B (gNodeB). Such failures undermine connectivity as the central security indicator for UAV operations. In this paper, we demonstrate these issues using three distinct threat models on a reproducible Open5GS and UERANSIM testbed that carries Micro Air Vehicle Link (MAVLink) over the 5G User Plane, and we use a commercial Nokia core to ground deployment assumptions. We address timeliness, availability, and integrity through experiments in which attack success is defined as forcing an unsafe closed-loop state without a clean disconnect. We observe stale telemetry and heavy-tailed delay under co-tenant User Plane contention, failsafe after handover under Control Plane instability, and navigation hijacking after command rewriting at a compromised gNodeB. We further discuss why each threat model arises and evaluate mitigations for these cross-layer failures. Across the study, we disclosed five robustness issues, all with assigned CVEs.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

作者在可复现的 Open5GS/UERANSIM 测试床上用三种威胁模型展示:5G 注册、PDU 会话与 IP 可达等连通性指标不能保证 UAV C2 闭环控制的安全。

正在读取账号与研究记录…

版本差异

本站首次收录为 v5,暂无更早版本可对照。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v5 · 2026-11-13 01:36 · 最新观测版本

When Connectivity Is Not Enough: Cross-Layer Attacks on UAV C2 over 5G

Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations increasingly use 5G standalone (SA) networks for command and control (C2) between the UAV and the ground control station (GCS). The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has specified mechanisms for authentication and authorization of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in this architectural setting. As a result, operators may treat registration state, Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session status, and IP reachability as evidence that the C2 path is available. In practice, however, these connectivity indicators alone do not guarantee that closed-loop control remains operationally safe. Attacks can degrade UAS C2 when timeliness degrades under shared User Plane contention, mobility continuity fails during Control Plane instability, or command integrity is violated at a trusted next-generation Node B (gNodeB). Such failures undermine connectivity as the central security indicator for UAV operations. In this paper, we demonstrate these issues using three distinct threat models on a reproducible Open5GS and UERANSIM testbed that carries Micro Air Vehicle Link (MAVLink) over the 5G User Plane, and we use a commercial Nokia core to ground deployment assumptions. We address timeliness, availability, and integrity through experiments in which attack success is defined as forcing an unsafe closed-loop state without a clean disconnect. We observe stale telemetry and heavy-tailed delay under co-tenant User Plane contention, failsafe after handover under Control Plane instability, and navigation hijacking after command rewriting at a compromised gNodeB. We further discuss why each threat model arises and evaluate mitigations for these cross-layer failures. Across the study, we disclosed five robustness issues, all with assigned CVEs.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗