Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses Security United States Technology

'DroneGun' Can Take Down Aircraft From Over 1.2 Miles Away (thenextweb.com) 147

Posted by BeauHD from the bombs-away dept.
The more drones being sold around the world increases the likelihood of them being used as part of a criminal act. For example, ISIS has been using drones in Iraq to carry and drop explosives. In an effort to protect consumers, an Australian and U.S. company called DroneShield has announced a product called the DroneGun. The DroneGun "allows for a controlled management of drone payload, such as explosives, with no damage to common drone models or the surrounding environment," the maker says on its website, "due to the drones generally responding via a vertical controlled landing on the spot, or returning back to the starting point (assisting to track the operator)." The Next Web reports: DroneGun, a handheld anti-drone device, has a range of 1.2 miles. It also looks like an unlockable item in a first-person shooter. The "gun" uses a jammer to disable electronic communication across the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz frequencies. Blocking these frequencies cuts off communication between the drone and pilot (or GPS) and forces it to land safely or return to its operator -- which assists in tracking the offending party. At 13 pounds, it's a bit cumbersome, but still capable of being operated by one person. It's also mostly a point-and-shoot device and doesn't require specialized training to use. DroneGun isn't approved for use in the United States -- thanks, FCC. If approved the device could provide a useful tool for taking down drones at airports, over crowded spaces, and in war zones.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'DroneGun' Can Take Down Aircraft From Over 1.2 Miles Away More

'DroneGun' Can Take Down Aircraft From Over 1.2 Miles Away

Comments Filter:

  • Autopilot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @07:13PM (#53381405)

    Dude, I'm not flying the bomb to your house while holding the transmitter, I'm turning on the auto pilot, letting it sit there for an hour, then take off and bomb you while I'm 2 states away. Oh, and I'm doing this on software thats a couple years old (ArduPilot from a few years ago) so ...

    This is useful for taking down your DJI phantom ... but as far as taking down a weaponized toy? Yea, no, you're going to need to hit inertial management and GPS based on what I can build for a hundred bucks. Give me 200 and I'll start doing optical guidance.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mallyn ( 136041 )
      Okay. You say 2 states. Do you mean Texas and New Mexico, or do you mean Rhode Island and Connecticut? And, of, yes, by the say, you are still in the U.S., which is in Funny Candy Company (FCC) land and subject to it's rules.

      Which reminds me, the FCC has monitoring stations throughout the country. And they are very sensitive. Once about 40 years ago, when I had my novice amateur radio license, I accidentally transmitted about .1 khz beyond the end of the novice band. I was transmitting with 50 watts in Ma

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Dude, I'm not flying the bomb to your house while holding the transmitter, I'm turning on the auto pilot, letting it sit there for an hour, then take off and bomb you while I'm 2 states away. Oh, and I'm doing this on software thats a couple years old (ArduPilot from a few years ago) so ...

      This is useful for taking down your DJI phantom ... but as far as taking down a weaponized toy? Yea, no, you're going to need to hit inertial management and GPS based on what I can build for a hundred bucks. Give me 200 and I'll start doing optical guidance.

      According to the article they're targeting the signal rather than the drone by interfering with the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. All you'd need to do is build your drone to use a different frequency and you'll be golden. You can do that for well under US$200.

      I do have to ask if this is any more effective than a rifle?

      The military will already have more effective tools, but they will also be going up against far more sophisticated drones. Also, the GIF looks like a bad infomercial rather than a weapons test.

    • If it makes it more difficult and expensive to build a "weaponized drone", then it serves a purpose. Even if it doesn't stop all drones, it is useful. People often make the mistake of thinking if a single deterrent doesn't stop everything by itself it is useless. That isn't the case, you need layers of defense.

      For stopping some teen flying his toy at an airport, this is absolutely a viable choice. Stopping Russia from attacking the white house? Maybe not.

      • If it makes it more difficult and expensive to build a "weaponized drone", then it serves a purpose.

        It doesn't. "Instead of" a ~$15 RX you need a ~$15 GPS module, which you would have installed anyway for position hold. You outright do not need a receiver to control a drone using open source flight control software. You install a $6 bluetooth to serial module, disable failsafe, program a mission, and then send the drone off on it. The code is open source and you can get a really nice flight controller for around twenty bucks, something with really quality baro and mag sensors. (I sure wish I could find an

    • Also good for denial of service attacks on Starbucks, McDonalds, and airport waiting lounges.

  • From TFS and TFA you get told

    has a range of 1.2 miles

    But if you go to companies website Drone Gun [droneshield.com] you see

    Allows for an up to 2km coverage

    So why is TFS and TFA lying about that extra 69.8 metres? What are they trying to hide?

    And yes I spelt metres the way it was intended to be spelt.

  • How long till the Narco-traffickers and coyotes start deploying these to take down the DHS drones patrolling the borders? No I didn't RTS or RTA, so don't flame me too much.

    • How long till the Narco-traffickers and coyotes start deploying these to take down the DHS drones patrolling the borders?

      Obvious solution: Make the wall higher.

      • Brilliant! Please submit your contact information so I can consider you for an appointment to head of DHS.

        Signed-
          President-Elect Trump

      • How long till the Narco-traffickers and coyotes start deploying these to take down the DHS drones patrolling the borders?

        Obvious solution: Make the wall higher.

        And deeper.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      Somehow I doubt military drones or even commercial drones for that matter use 2.4 GHz, wide-band control signals. Heck a lot of hobbyists use other frequencies for command and control. 900 MHz for telemetry and command and control is extremely common. I've got a pair of 900 MHz 3DR radio modems on my desk right now. They operate on unlicensed frequency and have a range of about 1 km. Other countries use lower frequencies like the 400s, which have even longer range. And some guys are using long-range UHF

      • Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I guess the narco's can use rifles just as easily.

      • Somehow I doubt military drones or even commercial drones for that matter use 2.4 GHz, wide-band control signals.

        I wonder is it's possible to make really wideband thingies that broadcast on a lot of frequencies.

        Even then, if you do, you're just providing a nice wideband homing signal, so you better not be where the transmitter is.

      • Somehow I doubt military drones or even commercial drones for that matter use 2.4 GHz, wide-band control signals. Heck a lot of hobbyists use other frequencies for command and control. 900 MHz for telemetry and command and control is extremely common.

        So is 433 MHz. You can buy 433 MHz TX (with PPM in) and RX (with multi-channel+PPM out) but it's like a hundred bucks. Still, for a big expensive drone, it might well be worth it. If you used a diversity receiver and a TX with a couple of TX modules glued to its arse you could use 433, 900, and 2.4 GHz on the same model and have reasonable assurance that this particular device would be ineffective. This would something like quadruple the minimum cost of the package, though, since you can buy a set of pretty

  • At those frequencies I could also use it to kill someone's WiFi. And, possibly, do it from a mile away.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Not just WiFi but pretty much most wireless crap you have around the house. How about your alarm system, central smoke/fire detectors, modern thermostats, pacemakers, Bluetooth.

      It's not even innovative, it is well known that a jammer will cause a drone to stop responding. Putting a can antenna on it makes it somewhat directional. However a drone doesn't have to be remote controlled. You can easily program it to follow a path and this thing won't be effective at all.

      • Not just WiFi but pretty much most wireless crap you have around the house. How about your alarm system, central smoke/fire detectors, modern thermostats, pacemakers, Bluetooth.

        Bloody hell!!!! How are the Mirai botnets from our wonderful Internet of Things going to work!!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          Most of those things aren't even Internet-connected, it just happens that those bands are freely available pretty much anywhere in the world without a license. Your microwave works in the same range.

          • Most of those things aren't even Internet-connected, it just happens that those bands are freely available pretty much anywhere in the world without a license. Your microwave works in the same range.

            You are going to have to spray a pretty wide group of frequencies, so between that and intermod, you'll be pumping out a lot of RF.

  • Blocking these frequencies cuts off communication between the drone and pilot (or GPS) and forces it to land safely or return to its operator -

    ISIS Drone 2.0 now contains differential antennas and will, when losing all communication, follow the source of the jamming signal.

    Are they seriously just banking on how some drones operate for this product to work? Disabling the "Land or return to owner" is a software change away.

    • Are they seriously just banking on how some drones operate for this product to work?

      Most drones don't do what the operator wants when the operator control link is disabled.

      Disabling the "Land or return to owner" is a software change away.

      They're not disabling any software settings. They're using the default standard of "return home when communications is lost" to cause it to return home when communications is lost. That, or the other simple act of "land now", whichever the drone happens to do.

      The summary mentions that it also jams GPS, but GPS is around 1.2 and 1.5GHz, so unless the summary is the typical nonsense of a press release, this is a very wid

      • They're using the default standard of "return home when communications is lost" to cause it to return home when communications is lost.

        Yes. And that "Default" is a software change away. You could even say "Disabling the land or return to owner can be changed in drone software to make this device useless".

        Most drones don't do what the operator wants when the operator control link is disabled.

        I never said that. I said they are banking on how the drone is designed to operate. (Disabled link = Go home).

        • I said they are banking on how the drone is designed to operate. (Disabled link = Go home).

          They're banking on the drone not doing what the operator wants it to do when the control system is compromised. "Don't deliver the payload." The "return to home" so they can track it is icing on the cake if it happens. The website talks about maintaining forensic capability, which means the drone is not destroyed in the process of stopping it.

          You might note that as the drone "returns to home" the control will be regained (the control signal will eventually be stronger than the jamming) and the operator can

          • You might note that as the drone "returns to home"...

            You seem to have missed the part where Mister Binary said "ISIS Drone 2.0 now contains differential antennas and will, when losing all communication, follow the source of the jamming signal". The drone could be modified and re-programmed to seek the jammer and drop a bomb when the signal strength maxes out. The operator would have to turn the jammer off to save his own ass from the drone he's trying to bring down. Of course, if that happens, deployment of decoy jammers will soon follow.

          • They're banking on the drone not doing what the operator wants it to do when the control system is compromised.

            The remote control system, you mean. The control system on board won't be affected. It will do whatever it is configured to do.

            You might note that as the drone "returns to home" the control will be regained (the control signal will eventually be stronger than the jamming) and the operator can divert it somewhere else, so "return to home" can already be subverted by the operator.

            A standard RtH will typically fly straight towards the activation position. But you don't have to use RtH on loss of signal. You could instead configure the system to activate a mission, and fly a set of waypoints intended to bring the drone back to a controllable location without revealing the position of the operator. As well, it will only fly back so far as is necessary for contr

            • Both you and jenningsthecat have missed that part where I talked about security systems being designed to deal with some but not every possible situation. I worded it as the operator not being fully committed or infinitely intelligent, but that's the gist of the idea. You both spend a lot of time developing hypothetical ways of defeating this system, but NOBODY HAS SAID IT WAS PERFECT or couldn't be defeated.

              OF COURSE someone who is committed to defeating this system can develop new systems that will do so

              • You underestimate the skill it takes to develop a good homing system that you toss off as just "a pair of antennas".

                Oh no, I fully realize that this is a non-trivial task.

                Especially if the jammer is broadband noise.

                It isn't, though. It's in a couple of specific frequency bands.

                You also seem to be stuck on the idea that "return to home" is the goal for this gun, when the fact is that "don't deliver the payload" is the actual goal.

                Then it's not going to work at all unless it jams GPS, because if I'm delivering a payload I'm not going to use a remote at all. I'm just going to program the thing to deliver the payload and then crash into a bush somewhere. I might go back for it much later. Given the low, low cost of a drone (definitely under $200) and the presumed value of smuggling 1-2 pounds of payload into a prison, t

  • Splitting hairs but.....

    I've always understood that a "drone" is an autonomous something. Jamming its C&C signal means at best you cut the visual link to home-base and the ability to assume control. It can still carry out its mission, because to qualify as a "drone" you are an autonomous thing carrying out a pre-programmed mission, or responding in real time to external conditions.

    Has this changed over the past few years?

    • I've always understood that a "drone" is an autonomous something. ... Has this changed over the past few years?

      Just as "Xerox" used to refer a machine/process developed by a specific company (whose name I don't remember at the moment) but now refers to a generic process of copying any document; "Kleenex" used to refer to a specific brand (whose name I also don't remember at the moment) of facial tissues but now refers to any facial tissue; and "tape" used to refer to magnetic tape cartridges containing game software (for Atari game systems, e.g.) but morphed into any cartridge inserted into such systems; "drone" has

  • Note to self. Use 900MHz band for Drone control. Of course, if the whole drone is up to something nefarious, maybe I could use an illegal transmitter. The way things are I could probably get more jail time for that than for flying a deadly payload.

  • You're Welcome.

    Sincerely,
    The FCC

  • How will robots be regulated when they can easily be programmed to commit illegal acts? What if a drone could break into houses and rob them? Who will be allowed to use that technology and run those programs?

  • I mean - yes it look like a fun gun - Is that just a typo? (F and G are beside each other on the keyboard) https://www.droneshield.com/dr... [droneshield.com]

  • The flying ones and their soon-to-be land-based rolling, crawling, or even walking equivalent will render the second amendment irrelevant. Enjoy your right to hand-held weapons while you can. That or you start a campaign for the right to build robots.

  • Stop the fucking clickbait Slashdot, seriously (Score:3, Informative)

    by readingprofile ( 3788695 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @08:29PM (#53381843)

    Yes, drones are aircraft, but not all aircraft are drones. This story (and the summary) is specifically focused on jamming drone communications. The Slashdot title however uses the word aircraft instead of drone, which would initially lead something into thinking this was something that could be used to take down passenger aircraft.

    Even if it can cause some radio interference to an airliner (not sure if it can or if it would even matter, just speculating), the very specific use of the word "Aircraft" rather than "Drones" in the title is not an accident. Slashdot, you're supposed to be better than that. I thought your new owners were going to be trying to improve its reputation. That, along with other crappy stories and a fixation on a lot of non-geek news as well, is kinda looking a lot like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

    • I am kind of with you on this one, but to be honest, the first word is dronegun, so the use of the word aircraft did not bring to my mind passenger style aircraft.

  • Why wouldn't terrorists use 72Mhz radios you can get for free from people willing to give them away. Why waste expensive electronics on a drone that's just going to blow up anyway?

    Assuming they don't go the high-tech autopilot route. If a drone can "return home", it can also "home in on target" with relatively minor software changes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Because its a lot easier to order a $200 drone on Amazon than it is to to build your own.

      Terrorists may be insane, but most of them are just as dumb and lazy as the rest of us.

      • Because its a lot easier to order a $200 drone on Amazon than it is to to build your own.

        OK. Still

        1) Buy drone, rig with explosives

        2) Set "home" location to "target" (chances are someone on the Internet has figured out how to change the "home" location arbitrarily for some drone)

        3) Put drone in air, turn off transmitter, drive away.

        4) Jam all you want, Johnny Law!

  • Kind of funny when it's a bomb...

  • This is a similar technique that brought the US down a while back, on different frequencies (jaming GPS, ~1.5ghz).
    Unfortunately, this does not work when the drone does not require such information (be it GPS or remote signal). Newer drones, both military and consumer grade use vision sensors and can even recognize preloaded maps by looking at the ground.

    Now, maybe ISIS does not yet have easy access to this tech (though anyone in the silicon valley does, or any decently good engineer really), and read-to-fly

  • Today : 'DroneGun' Can Take Down Aircraft From Over 1.2 Miles Away
    Tomorrow : Drone Can Take Down 'DroneGun' From Over 10 Miles Away

  • I would suggests an actual thanks to the FCC versus the snark. Keeping GPS working near airports is a good idea. I realize that Australia has a different view of what is good as their copyright shenanigans can attest to. Also disrupting 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz systems near airports (and many other places) isn't actually a good idea either. Given the range of 1.2 miles one suspects that using the 'drone gun' for various lulz would be just one web order away. Or one slightly less than attentive operator. We have l

  • "due to the drones generally responding via a vertical controlled landing on the spot, or returning back to the starting point (assisting to track the operator)."

    How do you know the bad guys won't reprogram their drones to continue the mission even if jammed; E.g. Continue on last known heading, or Upon loss of comms, immediately drop payload/self-destruct?

  • There are ready-made systems based on many frequencies as diverse as like 433Mhz, 868Mhz, 915Mhz, 1.2GHz and more besides the 2.4-5.8Ghz range this device attacks. Also, if I am dropping a bomb, I'll just program an autopilot to do that independently from external command, thing that can be easily done with many kinds of cheap controllers so, if you are delivering the payload with a DJI Phantom for instance, yeah, should work but that's it. IMHO they should try to disable/jam the GPS but even that would not

  • Finally - a use for all of that "Star Wars" missile defense technology developed back in the 1980's !!!!

    Of course - they never were able to get short an actual missile out of the sky, it kinda had to follow a predicable path, but still all that can be dusted off and made ready again.

    I think that program (SDI) was estimated to cost a few trillion USD$. How many drone killers will it take to pay that off?

  • If you think radio jamming should be legal, your issue isn't with the FCC, it's with US law, specifically 47 U.S.C. 333. Complain to Congress.

    Despite that these and other jammers would have some beneficial uses, in my opinion it's a very good thing that radio jamming is illegal (with some exceptions for law enforcement and national security). Legalizing radio jamming in any form would cause far more problems than it would solve.

  • Have to wonder if a focused microwave emitter like that could also fry a home router if directed horizontally... or, heat up your sandwich?

Slashdot Top Deals

Fast, cheap, good: pick two.

Close