A Survey on Security of UAV Swarm Networks: Attacks and Countermeasures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing popularity of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) swarms is attributed to their ability to generate substantial returns for various industries at a low cost. Additionally, in the future landscape of wireless networks, UAV swarms can serve as airborne base stations, alleviating the scarcity of communication resources. However, UAV swarm networks are vulnerable to various security threats that attackers can exploit with unpredictable consequences. Against this background, this article provides a comprehensive review on security of UAV swarm networks. We begin by briefly introducing the dominant UAV swarm technologies, followed by their civilian and military applications. We then present and categorize various potential attacks that UAV swarm networks may encounter, such as denial-of-service attacks, man-in-the-middle attacks, and attacks against Machine Learning (ML) models. After that, we introduce security technologies that can be utilized to address these attacks, including cryptography, physical layer security techniques, blockchain, ML, and intrusion detection. Additionally, we investigate and summarize mitigation strategies addressing different security threats in UAV swarm networks. Finally, some research directions and challenges are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".