MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'(allaboutcircuits.com)
allaboutcircuits.com
MadRadar attack causes automotive radar to 'hallucinate'
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/duke-universitys-madradar-attack-causes-automotive-radar-to-hallucinate/
61 comments
Spoofing radar signals isn't exactly new, and the ability to do it on the ground (so to speak) shouldn't be surprising. The military has been doing it for decades.
Also, it doesn't take nearly the sophistication of the system demo'ed here -- a chaff canister released into traffic would, I imagine, play twenty kinds of havoc on any autonomous driving system that relied on radar.
Also, it doesn't take nearly the sophistication of the system demo'ed here -- a chaff canister released into traffic would, I imagine, play twenty kinds of havoc on any autonomous driving system that relied on radar.
> Spoofing radar signals isn't exactly new, and the ability to do it on the ground (so to speak) shouldn't be surprising. The military has been doing it for decades.
People who are interested in finding out more can look up Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio_frequency_memory
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but the link's assertion that any of these techniques are new suggests that either allaboutcircuits is not familiar with radar/electronic attack or that Duke University and/or the automative radar folks are not up to speed with techniques used in radar/electronic attack in the defense/aerospace industries. Maybe it's the latter, as the arXiv preprint states "...show the novel ability to effectively ‘add’ (i.e., false positive attacks), ‘remove’ (i.e., false negative attacks), or ‘move’ (i.e., translation attacks) object detections...".
These are open data, too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception.
The arXiv preprint doesn't list any of the usual suspects for radar or electronic attack sources that I would expect to see in its references. There are a lot of automotive radar sources and, interestingly enough, some LiDAR and LiDAR adversarial attacks instead.
People who are interested in finding out more can look up Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio_frequency_memory
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but the link's assertion that any of these techniques are new suggests that either allaboutcircuits is not familiar with radar/electronic attack or that Duke University and/or the automative radar folks are not up to speed with techniques used in radar/electronic attack in the defense/aerospace industries. Maybe it's the latter, as the arXiv preprint states "...show the novel ability to effectively ‘add’ (i.e., false positive attacks), ‘remove’ (i.e., false negative attacks), or ‘move’ (i.e., translation attacks) object detections...".
These are open data, too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception.
The arXiv preprint doesn't list any of the usual suspects for radar or electronic attack sources that I would expect to see in its references. There are a lot of automotive radar sources and, interestingly enough, some LiDAR and LiDAR adversarial attacks instead.
What are the frequencies here ? Can it all be done with SDR ?
As the sibling comment from zeeed mentioned, yes — in this case.
More generally maybe but not always. If you wanted to use a DRFM jammer to insert false targets in an imaging radar, the bandwidths required may be a challenge.
There are commercial SAR satellite operators that you (for some definition of you — I personally couldn’t afford it) can buy from that sell imagery that’s got a resolution of 0.5 meters per pixel. That would require a bandwidth of about 300MHz. I haven’t looked at the SDR landscape in awhile but when I did that was sort of sporty — by that I mean >300 complex megasamples a second (for Nyquist, not including any oversampling).
And that would be after basebanding in analog before sampling to digital.
More generally maybe but not always. If you wanted to use a DRFM jammer to insert false targets in an imaging radar, the bandwidths required may be a challenge.
There are commercial SAR satellite operators that you (for some definition of you — I personally couldn’t afford it) can buy from that sell imagery that’s got a resolution of 0.5 meters per pixel. That would require a bandwidth of about 300MHz. I haven’t looked at the SDR landscape in awhile but when I did that was sort of sporty — by that I mean >300 complex megasamples a second (for Nyquist, not including any oversampling).
And that would be after basebanding in analog before sampling to digital.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16024.pdf
Yes, their POC uses SDR
Yes, their POC uses SDR
A large cloud of glitter would do the same for optical systems, e.g. human drivers. Shining intense light at drivers is also known to cause havoc and incidents. Now imagine a night road lit by a dancing hall light show; many human drivers would find themselves discombobulated.
>Shining intense light at drivers is also known to cause havoc and incidents.
This is absolutely normal when driving on American roads at night these days.
This is absolutely normal when driving on American roads at night these days.
Also, blue-tinted, blinding LED headlights everywhere, maybe that's what you meant. The laser lights maybe aren't blue-tinted but blinding nevertheless.
I'm in Canada and any discussion I have everyone agrees how every damn car now has blindingly bright headlights. It's not the bluish ones it's pure white lights they're incredibly bright. Someone dropped the ball on the regulations for modern headlights.
My cousin got a new truck and he said everyone now flashes their lights at him but his lights are on low. His previous truck was fine but this new model is terrible. It's not just trucks it's cars too.
I'm ready to go to my member of parliament to ask WTF?
My cousin got a new truck and he said everyone now flashes their lights at him but his lights are on low. His previous truck was fine but this new model is terrible. It's not just trucks it's cars too.
I'm ready to go to my member of parliament to ask WTF?
That's because the headlights got ever smaller, they are now point sources that output as much power (or more) than previous generations but from a much smaller spot. The fact that it is all direct light now rather than indirect via mirrors also doesn't help, that means you're looking straight at the lightsource instead of at a reflection across a much wider area.
There is some talk about regulating minimum projected area for a given amount of power to reduce this effect somewhat.
There is some talk about regulating minimum projected area for a given amount of power to reduce this effect somewhat.
I think what would help would be some way to turn down the brightness of the headlights that could be calibrated at the shop when you get tires rotated.
Set some rules for how bright lights are allowed to be.
Set some rules for how bright lights are allowed to be.
As a cyclist, I hate peeking over my left shoulder and seeing two red lights at a distance behind me, then all the sudden some Jeep (or r/Heep) blasts by me.
Oh, that Jeep was running red lights on the front. I thought that vehicle was heading away from me.
Oh, that Jeep was running red lights on the front. I thought that vehicle was heading away from me.
Red lights on the front? Is that a common thing, I've never heard of it. Surely it's illegal?
Red, green, blue, etc...
Every state has laws that when a vehicle is in forward motion on a road, that the only permissible colored lights are white and amber. Yes illegal.
Every state has laws that when a vehicle is in forward motion on a road, that the only permissible colored lights are white and amber. Yes illegal.
Yep, that's exactly what I meant: all the ridiculously bright headlights that are always on the high-beam setting, plus also the huge off-road light bars that pickup trucks commonly have and use on the highways.
[deleted]
Even ignoring the possibility of intentional jamming, I wonder if the increase in radar-equipped cars will start causing significant interference in other cars' operations. Every once in a while I get a phantom "brake!" signal when there is nothing in front of me.
Just about every Toyota sold in the past few years has a radar unit on its bumper. Pretty sure if there was going to be interference naturally from a lot of vehicles, we would have seen it already.
I'm sure they tests their vehicles to prevent the scenario where their own cars interfere with each other.
I think what's important here is not this first low-level stab at manipulating car radar systems. It makes a beach head on what adversaries can possibly do and demonstrates that manufacturers need to try harder.
I wonder how much effort is warranted though.
If people want to mess up traffic they can drop a concrete block off an overpass, run a heavy chain across the road, change signage, use tire shredders or do any number of antisocial things. Many of which are extremely cheap and not preventable.
Probably the most novel factor would be that sensor disruption is more deniable than many other threats to drivers.
But how much additional cost/expense would that justify? Technically mitigating every risk isn't really possible, at some point you have to fall back to the legal system.
If people want to mess up traffic they can drop a concrete block off an overpass, run a heavy chain across the road, change signage, use tire shredders or do any number of antisocial things. Many of which are extremely cheap and not preventable.
Probably the most novel factor would be that sensor disruption is more deniable than many other threats to drivers.
But how much additional cost/expense would that justify? Technically mitigating every risk isn't really possible, at some point you have to fall back to the legal system.
> Probably the most novel factor would be that sensor disruption is more deniable than many other threats to drivers.
There's another aspect to it: sure you could disrupt traffic with all the means you cited, but you had to be there physically, and you'd run the very likely risk of being caught and beaten up by angry drivers.
With invisible and electronic means like this, all it takes is to put a box with the jamming kit and a small battery near the road and you can trigger it when you're far, and you could even trigger it in many big roads at the same time and see the chaos you caused.
Why would you do that? For the same reason a few people send false bomb alerts for the police to evacuate places, and others SWAT streamers. Out of pure naughtiness.
There's another aspect to it: sure you could disrupt traffic with all the means you cited, but you had to be there physically, and you'd run the very likely risk of being caught and beaten up by angry drivers.
With invisible and electronic means like this, all it takes is to put a box with the jamming kit and a small battery near the road and you can trigger it when you're far, and you could even trigger it in many big roads at the same time and see the chaos you caused.
Why would you do that? For the same reason a few people send false bomb alerts for the police to evacuate places, and others SWAT streamers. Out of pure naughtiness.
Actually you don't. A well known attack against trucking is to suspend a cinder block from an overpass, just high enough for the cars to miss it but not the trucks. People put them up in the middle of the night and are miles away before an incident.
Dropping caltrops on a secondary road at night would also work. Rigging a drone to drop chaff on a freeway, etc, would also get the perpetrator physically away from the action. Really, with some creativity, surprisingly crude attacks can shut down a road with minimal exposure of the perp.
A decade ago, the Beltway Sniper terrorized my neighborhood for two weeks. It turned out to be a teenage boy and a certifiably insane adult with some military training. A similar attack by someone who actually knew what they were doing and who wasn't addled would have been very, very difficult to catch. Much less if the attack were, say, from wooded roadsides that overlooked interstates.
Dropping caltrops on a secondary road at night would also work. Rigging a drone to drop chaff on a freeway, etc, would also get the perpetrator physically away from the action. Really, with some creativity, surprisingly crude attacks can shut down a road with minimal exposure of the perp.
A decade ago, the Beltway Sniper terrorized my neighborhood for two weeks. It turned out to be a teenage boy and a certifiably insane adult with some military training. A similar attack by someone who actually knew what they were doing and who wasn't addled would have been very, very difficult to catch. Much less if the attack were, say, from wooded roadsides that overlooked interstates.
>There's another aspect to it: sure you could disrupt traffic with all the means you cited, but you had to be there physically, and you'd run the very likely risk of being caught and beaten up by angry drivers
Dropping a handful of nails over an overpass is unlikely to be noticed, much less attract retaliation from the victims
Dropping a handful of nails over an overpass is unlikely to be noticed, much less attract retaliation from the victims
What's funny is that so much effort is going into these radar systems for non-autonomous vehicular systems that can be resolved by teaching people how to correctly set their side mirrors to cover their blind spots. You eliminate your blind spots by moving your side mirrors out enough that you can't see the sides of your car without tilting your head a little. You don't need to see your own car in your side mirrors.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjus...
After I got my most recent vehicle I discovered it has a 24GHz rear-facing radar in order to alert me to a possible car in my blind spots. It misfires all the time and alerts me to guard rails and phantoms that don't exist. I don't need it, because I now keep my side mirrors set correctly I know where cars are beside me before the radar knows. I turn it off but now I'm curious if that actually deactivates the radar emitter or just stops alerting me to hits.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjus...
After I got my most recent vehicle I discovered it has a 24GHz rear-facing radar in order to alert me to a possible car in my blind spots. It misfires all the time and alerts me to guard rails and phantoms that don't exist. I don't need it, because I now keep my side mirrors set correctly I know where cars are beside me before the radar knows. I turn it off but now I'm curious if that actually deactivates the radar emitter or just stops alerting me to hits.
> I don't need it, because I now keep my side mirrors set correctly I know where cars are beside me before the radar knows.
It's not there to replace you looking. It's there as an extra information source in case you make a mistake when looking. Maybe you're lucky with the your car, but even with curved ends of mirrors in mine, there's still a blind spot where I would not see a bike on the passenger's side and the little extra notification is great for that. It blinks for guard rails too, but that doesn't bother me - there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail.
It's not there to replace you looking. It's there as an extra information source in case you make a mistake when looking. Maybe you're lucky with the your car, but even with curved ends of mirrors in mine, there's still a blind spot where I would not see a bike on the passenger's side and the little extra notification is great for that. It blinks for guard rails too, but that doesn't bother me - there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail.
I didn't say the radar was there to replace looking. All you do is set your mirrors correctly and then there's no more blind spot. That's the entire point of the radar system, to "fix" the alleged blind spot problem. The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place.
> there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail.
...
> there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail.
...
> The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place.
You're literally responding to my post where I say this is not possible on my car. There's no orientation which doesn't leave a small blind spot. Not large enough for most cars, but definitely enough to hide a person/bike.
You're literally responding to my post where I say this is not possible on my car. There's no orientation which doesn't leave a small blind spot. Not large enough for most cars, but definitely enough to hide a person/bike.
Have an upvote, I am dumb.
> That's the entire point of the radar system, to "fix" the alleged blind spot problem.
> The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place.
The problem being solved here is that, no matter how many mirrors of any configuration one has, they are still a squishy human who will eventually make a mistake, given that mirrors are used hundreds of times per driving trip. Or they bad-luck into a situation where another driver changes the situation faster than a reasonable, human mirror-checking regimen would reveal. These systems add a layer of safety for when, not if, that happens.
> The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place.
The problem being solved here is that, no matter how many mirrors of any configuration one has, they are still a squishy human who will eventually make a mistake, given that mirrors are used hundreds of times per driving trip. Or they bad-luck into a situation where another driver changes the situation faster than a reasonable, human mirror-checking regimen would reveal. These systems add a layer of safety for when, not if, that happens.
Also, mirrors that curve near the far end.
Each time I visit US I'm frustrated by the american cars having flat mirrors. The blind spots are insane. I guess it's due to some weird regulation?
In EU mirrors have their last 2-4cm curved, and there's virtually no blind spot, and you don't need to adjust mirrors too precisely even.
Each time I visit US I'm frustrated by the american cars having flat mirrors. The blind spots are insane. I guess it's due to some weird regulation?
In EU mirrors have their last 2-4cm curved, and there's virtually no blind spot, and you don't need to adjust mirrors too precisely even.
> In EU
Definitely not everywhere in the EU. My Yaris has flat mirrors.
Definitely not everywhere in the EU. My Yaris has flat mirrors.
This - and turning your head when changing lanes in vehicles without proper curved side mirrors save lifes too.
I got a Volkswagen with front assist and adaptive cruise control. I use it mainly for long runs with little traffic, that way my foot doesn’t get cramped for staying at the same position.
When crossing under some bridges, sometimes it decelerates and warns me of a collision, even if there is no one there. I have to override it by stepping on the gas pedal until I’m through.
I’ve also felt it hiccup on a test strip where they were testing radars, I was guessing it was due to them using similar frequencies, but I’m not sure on that one.
When crossing under some bridges, sometimes it decelerates and warns me of a collision, even if there is no one there. I have to override it by stepping on the gas pedal until I’m through.
I’ve also felt it hiccup on a test strip where they were testing radars, I was guessing it was due to them using similar frequencies, but I’m not sure on that one.
Exactly why Tesla switched to vision only
Nah, that was cost.
Why include a (much more expensive) FSD computer in every Tesla then, if it was just a cost-saving measure and radar is actually needed for self-driving? FSD works better today with vision only than any other solution with vison+radar.
The computer was needed anyway to get sensor fusion and reasoning about environment around, so it's not something that was "added" or "more expensive".
Also, their original solution did sensor fusion with LIDAR, but the vendor find out and blew a gasket - because the LIDAR sensors weren't designed for safety-critical operation and to my understanding became a potential liability for the maker if they continued to supply them for incorrect use knowingly.
Also, their original solution did sensor fusion with LIDAR, but the vendor find out and blew a gasket - because the LIDAR sensors weren't designed for safety-critical operation and to my understanding became a potential liability for the maker if they continued to supply them for incorrect use knowingly.
>Also, their original solution did sensor fusion with LIDAR, but the vendor find out and blew a gasket - because the LIDAR sensors weren't designed for safety-critical operation and to my understanding became a potential liability for the maker if they continued to supply them for incorrect use knowingly.
When did Tesla have LIDAR?
When did Tesla have LIDAR?
My bad, it was RADAR, not LIDAR, with Musk explicitly saying how it was better because unlike optical systems it wasn't blocked by bad weather so much.
I unfortunately don't have link about supplier dropping them - I do recall it was a bit of a scandal at the time but it quickly got overshadowed with other issues and well, FSD not working right was "business as usual"
I unfortunately don't have link about supplier dropping them - I do recall it was a bit of a scandal at the time but it quickly got overshadowed with other issues and well, FSD not working right was "business as usual"
Wrong. You’re thinking of tesla dropping mobileye back in like 2014. Nothing to do with ditching radar last year
Completely incorrect and made up.
IIRC from greentheonly’s twitter, there’s evidence of a brief experiment to do early fusion of vision and radar in the perception model
> People rediscover radar attack that has been known and fixed over six decades ago.
Amazing. We've gone full circle now. I wonder if this is a problem of generational differences in knowledge transfer ... or rather the lack of it.
Amazing. We've gone full circle now. I wonder if this is a problem of generational differences in knowledge transfer ... or rather the lack of it.
Worker attrition is way too high nowadays to keep deep knowledge in niche fields I believe. Old school seniors have retired and are being replaced by nobody.
You can notice this in a lot of hardware products with "noob" mistakes that the prior product generation did not have etc. Software is probably the same but the product is too opaque to see into so ot just feels crappy.
You can notice this in a lot of hardware products with "noob" mistakes that the prior product generation did not have etc. Software is probably the same but the product is too opaque to see into so ot just feels crappy.
Turns out calculus was invented in 1994:
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscover...
given car companies seem incapable of securing something as basic as a car key
how long until smart 12 year olds can remotely hijack major car brands on a freeway with a laptop and a small python script?
how long until smart 12 year olds can remotely hijack major car brands on a freeway with a laptop and a small python script?
Realistically, it's been possible on and off for quite some time. Chrysler's UConnect system received quite a bit of flak some years back over just how easy it was to take over full control of a vehicle[0]; not just locking/unlocking doors, but full control over the climate system and wipers, all the way up to starting and stopping the engine or changing gear in the transmission.
[0]: https://jalopnik.com/chryslers-uconnect-vulnerable-to-remote...
[0]: https://jalopnik.com/chryslers-uconnect-vulnerable-to-remote...
That is why steer by wire steering is terrifying. If your car turn full left due to some hack or bug at some speed trigger you are dead. And the industry push it as cost cutting.
It goes the other way too. My city has installed a large number of radar detection cross walk lights. You can tell when a car with radar goes down a street because they progressively trigger each cross walk light despite there being no people. There are certain times a year when the sun is in just the right position in the morning to cause them to stay permanently on for hours as well.
Did you know that fully analogue human-piloted cars are vulnerable? Researchers have recently described the "MadBrick attack": a malicious attacker can remotely disable a human-piloted car or cause it to veer off road by dropping a brick through the windshield from an overpass. Clearly, car manufacturers need to promptly address this class of vulnerabilities.
Thats a little different in that the car wont override what ypu tell it to do from the brick attck but it potentially will for thw above attck.
This has been addressed already, though not by manufacturers. If you live (or drive through) an area where brick attacks are known to happen, you just put protective films on the windshield. It usually still ends up damaged but you can continue to drive just fine (I know because I have).
Really? It helps against a brick?
Absolutely, can confirm.
As I said, the windshield will still break, but will still be held together by the film.
Now as far as keeping thieves out it is far less useful as it can be cut with a very sharp object (same things firefighters do if they need to take someone out of a car with such films).
In fact, for safety, I did keep the rear glass without a film.
Fortunately, I no longer need to drive though that place but when I did, it made a world of a difference.
Now as far as keeping thieves out it is far less useful as it can be cut with a very sharp object (same things firefighters do if they need to take someone out of a car with such films).
In fact, for safety, I did keep the rear glass without a film.
Fortunately, I no longer need to drive though that place but when I did, it made a world of a difference.
I imagine the window still shatters but keeps together instead of spraying glass everywhere.
Similarly to glass with an embedded wire mesh.
Similarly to glass with an embedded wire mesh.
Exactly this.
In fact, it’s the same protection I have now at home in a couple of roof windows. Not because I expect attacks, but because I’ve got one more floor above and I want some safety in case something heavy and loose falls down during a storm.
The glass is gone anyways, but the goal is never to save the glass (that’s impossible, I guess) but to dramatically minimize the risk of personal injury.
The glass is gone anyways, but the goal is never to save the glass (that’s impossible, I guess) but to dramatically minimize the risk of personal injury.
Pointing lasers at people's eyes causes degradation of visual acuity
There are some really ingenious ways to make a self driving vehicle that won't collide with other vehicles. But they all end up just becoming a train/trolley.
Steering? Rails.
Anti-collision? Signals.
Fuel/Charging? Overhead power lines.
Steering? Rails.
Anti-collision? Signals.
Fuel/Charging? Overhead power lines.
Does the trick with tape on the ground causing Teslas to steer into walls still work or did they patch that for all the ignorant alpha testers out there?
LIDAR has the same problem and the same countermeasures. Pulsed LIDAR units should have a few microseconds of random jitter in the pulse timing, too. You can still get a collision, but not multiple consistent collisions in a row, so you know it's noise.