(Replying to PARENT post)

The localizer (lateral deviation indication) is going to be harder to spoof due to the beat/squeal that it would introduce when broadcast alongside the legitimate localizer. The pilot (or PNF) will monitor the audio signal for the Morse code that identifies the localizer and the squeal will be apparent.

The glideslope signal (vertical deviation indication) would be easier to spoof. Set that up 1/2 mile short of the runway and aligned to intercept the proper glideslope shortly before the true glideslope intercept point (Maltese cross on the chart). That has a chance of working and going undetected. If you're able to get an aircraft onto the rogue glideslope lobe, even when ATC gets a low altitude alert, the crew is likely to report they're perfectly on glideslope. I'm not sure this is as practical an attack as simply firing on an aircraft on approach, of course.

๐Ÿ‘คsokoloff๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

And with WAAS, the world is moving towards GPS approaches anyway. Even without careful planning anyone with a mildly powerful VHF radio and a yagi antenna can jam ILS, VORs and ATC comms rather effectively and has been able to since the end of WWII.

I've seen these articles pop up a few times in the past couple days but everyone in aviation already knows that there isn't any security on this stuff. People even jam ATC for giggles sometimes[1]. There's enough redundancy that nothing bad has happened as a result so everyone goes on with life. I think this is just low hanging defcon fruit targeting non aviation-aware readers.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvA_-linhg8

๐Ÿ‘คAWildC182๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

> harder to spoof

Whenever I hear something like this it reminds me of the favorite talks I attended. The Iridium hacking talk at HOPE XI[1].

"When they talk about security they mainly talk about 'hey this is so complex, no one is able to do this, maybe a state or something like that'. So they say 'it will probably be beyond the reach of all but the most determined attackers.' We went well ok, we are determined."

[1]: https://youtu.be/cvKaC4pNvck

๐Ÿ‘คDatenstrom๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Isn't this pretty much the plot to Die Hard 2?
๐Ÿ‘คmadMapper๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

I don't think the attack would work in the wild; even on a Cat III autoland approach, there is still a decision altitude and runway visual range requirements. When the runway never appears it's a go around.
๐Ÿ‘คStevvo๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Couldn't squeal be minimized by phase matching the localizer then mixing in a doppler offset (assuming you know what you're targeting)? You would still likely get some noise but possibly not sufficient to disrupt the action.
๐Ÿ‘คjcims๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

> I'm not sure this is as practical an attack as simply firing on an aircraft on approach, of course.

But that would reveal your position. Presumably the above could be executed without even being present: just leave behind the equipment.

๐Ÿ‘คwyldfire๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

One could probably simultaneously spoof ADS-B for added chaos.
๐Ÿ‘คi_am_proteus๐Ÿ•‘6y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0