Electronic Warfare Cyberattacks, Countermeasures and Modern Defensive Strategies of UAV Avionics: A Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) play a pivotal role in modern autonomous air mobility, and the reliability of UAV avionics systems is critical to ensuring mission success, sustainability practices, and public safety. The success of UAV missions depends on effectively mitigating various aspects of electronic warfare, including non-destructive and destructive cyberattacks, transponder vulnerabilities, and jamming threats, while rigorously implementing countermeasures and defensive aids. This paper provides a comprehensive review of UAV cyberattacks, countermeasures, and defensive strategies. It explores UAV-to-UAV coordination attacks and their associated features, such as dispatch system attacks, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) attacks, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)-induced collisions, and TCAS attacks. Additionally, the paper examines UAV-to-command center coordination attacks, as well as UAV functionality attacks. The review also covers various countermeasures and defensive aids designed for UAVs. Lastly, a comparison of common cyberattacks and countermeasure approaches is conducted, along with a discussion of future trends in the field. Keywords: Electronic warfare, UAVs, Avionics Systems, cyberattacks, coordination attacks, functionality attacks, countermeasure, defensive-aids.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".