Software Version Numbers

Software version information for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), open-source software (OSS), firmware, operating systems, libraries, middleware, bootloaders, software-defined radios, and other software-enabled components used in spacecraft and ground systems must be protected from unauthorized or unnecessary disclosure. Exact component versions can allow adversaries to correlate an identified product or library with public vulnerability databases, vendor advisories, exploit repositories, known configuration weaknesses, and software-specific backdoor or supply-chain opportunities. Version information may be exposed directly through telemetry fields, network and service banners, diagnostic commands, management interfaces, error messages, log outputs, crash reports, configuration files, package manifests, filenames, firmware headers, debug symbols, update metadata, and publicly released documentation. Versions may also be inferred indirectly through protocol behavior, command responses, file hashes, default configurations, timing characteristics, or software-specific error conditions. These disclosure paths should be identified and controlled according to mission risk. Authoritative version information must remain available through controlled mechanisms to authorized developers, maintainers, operators, assessors, and incident responders. CM0007 is intended to limit unauthorized disclosure of exact software versions, not to eliminate internal software identification, configuration tracking, or diagnostic capability. Version-number protection increases the effort required for adversary reconnaissance but does not prevent active fingerprinting or mitigate vulnerabilities present in the software.

ID: CM0007

Tier: I

Ground CM

Created: 2022/10/19

Last Modified: 2026/08/06

Pre-Operations Government

Acquisition requirements should mandate that contractors identify and control mechanisms through which exact software version information could be disclosed to unauthorized users, including telemetry fields, network service banners, diagnostic outputs, error messages, log outputs, update interfaces, and publicly accessible technical artifacts. Requirements should distinguish between unauthorized external disclosure and authorized operational access. The system should suppress or generalize unnecessary version information exposed through unauthenticated or broadly accessible interfaces while preserving accurate version information through authenticated, access-controlled maintenance, configuration-management, and diagnostic mechanisms. Where operations require a software identifier in routine telemetry, the system may expose an opaque build identifier, approved mission release identifier, or other controlled reference rather than the exact versions of underlying components. Requirements should apply to both spacecraft flight software and ground system software, and should be flowed down to subcontractors and component suppliers who integrate COTS or OSS into deliverable systems. Contract language should require authoritative software version records to remain available through approved, access-controlled configuration and maintenance mechanisms. Detailed software inventories and SBOM requirements should be addressed under CM0012, while CM0007 should govern whether and how exact version information is exposed through delivered system interfaces, documentation, and operational outputs. Verification should inspect telemetry definitions, interface control documents, command dictionaries, service configurations, diagnostic interfaces, firmware headers, log formats, error responses, update interfaces, and publicly releasable documentation for unnecessary version disclosure. Testing should probe accessible interfaces from unauthenticated and least-privileged contexts to determine whether exact versions can be obtained directly or inferred through banners, response formats, error conditions, metadata, protocol behavior, or diagnostic commands. Verification should also confirm that authorized personnel can retrieve accurate version information through approved, access-controlled maintenance or diagnostic mechanisms. These activities should occur during software and hardware integration, security testing, acceptance testing, and other mission-defined verification events.

Pre-Operations Developer/Supplier

Software architects and developers should audit all external-facing interfaces, including telemetry downlink definitions, ground support equipment interfaces, diagnostic ports, network service configurations, and error logging outputs, at the design stage to identify every location where software version strings could be exposed. Default behaviors of COTS and OSS components that broadcast version information, such as network service banners and verbose error responses, should be disabled or suppressed as a baseline configuration requirement rather than a post-integration hardening step. Exact version information required for authorized maintenance, configuration identification, compatibility verification, and anomaly resolution should be retained through controlled internal mechanisms. Version strings exposed through operational interfaces, routine telemetry, banners, filenames, error outputs, or public artifacts should be removed, generalized, replaced with an opaque mission identifier, or restricted to authenticated users when the exact version is not operationally necessary. Version-disclosure controls shall not interfere with secure boot, software update compatibility checks, fault isolation, anomaly resolution, configuration identification, or authorized maintenance. Exact version information should remain accessible to authorized personnel even when it is suppressed or generalized on externally accessible interfaces. Internal version records should be protected according to their mission sensitivity and made available only to personnel and systems with an authorized need. Detailed SBOM creation, dependency tracking, and software inventory management should be implemented under CM0012 and related configuration-management countermeasures.

Sustainment & Maintenance Government

Version-disclosure controls should be maintained as part of the approved spacecraft and ground-system configuration. Any software update, firmware load, operating-system change, middleware replacement, new network service, diagnostic-tool change, telemetry modification, or interface update should trigger a review for direct and indirect version disclosure. Regression testing should verify that changes have not reenabled version-disclosures. Testing should include both direct requests for version information and indirect fingerprinting through protocol responses, error behavior, default configurations, or component-specific functionality. Where exact version information is operationally required, it should be exposed only through authenticated and access-controlled mechanisms. Routine or broadly accessible interfaces should provide only the minimum identifier needed for operations, such as an opaque build identifier or mission release identifier, without identifying the underlying COTS, OSS, library, operating-system, or firmware versions.

Sustainment & Maintenance Developer/Supplier

Techniques Addressed by Countermeasure

ID		Name	Description
REC-0008		Gather Supply Chain Information	Threat actors map the end-to-end pathway by which hardware, software, data, and people move from design through AIT, launch, and on-orbit sustainment. They catalog manufacturers and lots, test and calibration houses, logistics routes and waypoints, integrator touchpoints, key certificates and tooling, update and key-loading procedures, and who holds custody at each handoff. They correlate this with procurement artifacts, SBOMs, BOMs, and service contracts to locate where trust is assumed rather than verified. Particular attention falls on exceptions, engineering builds, rework tickets, advance replacements, depot repairs, and urgent field updates, because controls are frequently relaxed there. The result is a prioritized list of choke points (board fabrication, FPGA bitstream signing, image repositories, CI/CD runners, cloud artifact stores, freight forwarders) where compromise yields outsized effect.
	.02	Software Recon	Threat actors enumerate the software factory: where source lives, how dependencies are pulled, how artifacts are built, signed, stored, and promoted to flight. They inventory repos and access models, CI/CD orchestrators, build containers and base images, package registries, signing services/HSMs, update channels, and the policies that gate promotion (tests, reviews, attestations). With this, an adversary can plan dependency confusion or typosquatting attacks, modify build scripts, poison cached artifacts, or swap binaries at distribution edges (mirrors, CDN, ground station staging).
	.03	Known Vulnerabilities	Adversaries correlate discovered component and software versions with public and private vulnerability sources to assemble a ready exploit catalog. Inputs include CPE/CVE mappings, vendor advisories, CWE-class weaknesses common to selected RTOS/middleware, FPGA IP core errata, cryptographic library issues, and hardware stepping errata that interact with thermal/power regimes. They mine leaked documents, demo code, bug trackers, and community forums; pivot from ground assets to flight by following shared libraries and tooling; and watch for lag between disclosure and patch deployment. Even when a vulnerability seems “ground-only,” it may expose build systems or update paths that ultimately control flight artifacts.
IA-0001		Compromise Supply Chain	Adversaries achieve first execution before the spacecraft ever flies by inserting malicious code, data, or configuration during manufacturing, integration, or delivery. Targets include software sources and dependencies, build systems and compilers, firmware/bitstreams for MCUs and FPGAs, configuration tables, test vectors, and off-the-shelf avionics. Inserted artifacts are designed to appear legitimate, propagate through normal processes, and activate under routine procedures or specific modes (e.g., safing, maintenance). Common insertion points align with where trust is assumed, vendor updates, mirrors and registries, CI/CD runners, programming stations, and “golden image” repositories. The result is pre-positioned access that blends with baseline behavior, often with delayed or conditional triggers and strong deniability.
	.02	Software Supply Chain	Here the manipulation targets software delivered to flight or ground systems: altering source before build, swapping signed binaries at distribution edges, subverting update metadata, or using stolen signing keys to issue malicious patches. Space-specific vectors include mission control applications, schedulers, gateway services, flight tables and configuration packages, and firmware loads during I&T or LEOP. Adversaries craft payloads that pass superficial validation, trigger under particular operating modes, or reintroduce known weaknesses through version rollback. “Data payloads” such as malformed tables, ephemerides, or calibration products can double as exploits when parsers are permissive. The objective is to ride the normal promotion pipeline so the implant arrives pre-trusted and executes as part of routine operations.
PER-0002		Backdoor	A backdoor is a covert access path that bypasses normal authentication, authorization, or operational checks so the attacker can reenter the system on demand. Backdoors may be preexisting (undocumented service modes, maintenance accounts, debug features) or introduced by the adversary during development, integration, or on-orbit updates. Triggers range from “magic” opcodes and timetags to specific geometry/time conditions, counters, or data patterns embedded in routine traffic. The access they provide varies from expanded command sets and relaxed rate/size limits to alternate communications profiles and hidden file/parameter interfaces. Well-crafted backdoors blend with nominal behavior, appearing as ordinary operations while quietly accepting instructions that other paths would reject, thereby sustaining the attacker’s foothold across passes, resets, and operator handovers.
	.02	Software Backdoor	Software backdoors are code paths intentionally crafted or later inserted to provide privileged functionality on cue. In flight contexts, they appear as hidden command handlers, alternate authentication checks, special user/role constructs, or procedure/script hooks that accept nonpublic inputs. They can be embedded in flight applications, separation kernels or drivers, gateway processors that translate bus/payload traffic, or update/loader utilities that handle tables and images. SDR configurations offer another avenue: non-public waveforms, subcarriers, or framing profiles that, when selected, expose a private command channel. Activation is often conditional, specific timetags, geometry, message sequences, or file names, to keep the feature dormant during routine testing and operations. Once present, the backdoor provides a repeatable way to execute commands or modify state without traversing the standard control surfaces, sustaining the adversary’s access over time.

Space Threats Addressed by Countermeasure

ID	Description
SV-SP-1	Exploitation of software vulnerabilities (bugs); Unsecure code, logic errors, etc. in the FSW.
SV-SP-3	Introduction of malicious software such as a virus, worm, Distributed Denial-Of-Service (DDOS) agent, keylogger, rootkit, or Trojan Horse
SV-SP-6	Software reuse, COTS dependence, and standardization of onboard systems using building block approach with addition of open-source technology leads to supply chain threat
SV-SP-9	On-orbit software updates/upgrades/patches/direct memory writes. If TT&C is compromised or MOC or even the developer's environment, the risk exists to do a variation of a supply chain attack where after it is in orbit you inject malicious code

Sample Requirements

SPARTA ID	Requirement	Rationale/Additional Guidance/Notes
SPR-2	The [spacecraft] shall ensure that sensitive information can only be accessed by personnel with appropriate roles and an explicit need for such information to perform their duties.{SV-CF-3,SV-AC-4}{AC-3(11),CM-12}	Space system sensitive information can include a wide range of candidate material: functional and performance specifications, any ICDs (like radio frequency, ground-to-space, etc.), command and telemetry databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of link segment protections subject to disabling/bypassing, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and mission operations.
SPR-7	The [organization] shall document and design a security architecture using a defense-in-depth approach that allocates the [organization]s defined safeguards to the indicated locations and layers: [Examples include: operating system abstractions and hardware mechanisms to the separate processors in the platform, internal components, and the FSW].{SV-MA-6}{CA-9,PL-7,PL-8,PL-8(1),SA-8(3),SA-8(4),SA-8(7),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(13),SA-8(19),SA-8(29),SA-8(30)}	Spacecraft security cannot rely on a single control; layered defenses reduce the likelihood of catastrophic compromise. Documenting safeguard allocation across hardware, OS, firmware, and FSW ensures coverage across attack surfaces. This supports resiliency against both cyber intrusion and supply chain weaknesses. Clear documentation enables verification and independent assessment.
SPR-9	The [organization] shall implement a security architecture and design that provides the required security functionality, allocates security controls among physical and logical components, and integrates individual security functions, mechanisms, and processes together to provide required security capabilities and a unified approach to protection.{SV-MA-6}{PL-7,SA-2,SA-8,SA-8(1),SA-8(2),SA-8(3),SA-8(4),SA-8(5),SA-8(6),SA-8(7),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(13),SA-8(19),SA-8(29),SA-8(30),SC-32,SC-32(1)}	Security functionality must be intentionally distributed across physical and logical components rather than bolted on post-design. A unified architecture prevents inconsistent enforcement, duplicated controls, or unprotected interfaces. Integrated design reduces attack surface and improves verification of mission-critical protections.
SPR-227	The [organization] shall identify all locations (including ground and contractor systems) that store or process sensitive system information.{SV-CF-3,SV-SP-4,SV-SP-10}{AC-3(11),CM-12}	Space system sensitive information can include a wide range of candidate material: functional and performance specifications, any ICDs (like radio frequency, ground-to-space, etc.), command and telemetry databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of link segment protections subject to disabling/bypassing, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and mission operations.
SPR-228	The [organization] shall identify sensitive mission data (e.g.CPI) and document the specific on-board components on which the information is processed and stored.{SV-MA-4,SV-CF-3}{AC-3(11),CM-12}	Space system sensitive information can include a wide range of candidate material: functional and performance specifications, any ICDs (like radio frequency, ground-to-space, etc.), command and telemetry databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of link segment protections subject to disabling/bypassing, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and mission operations.
SPR-229	The [organization] shall protect documentation and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) as required, in accordance with the risk management strategy.{SV-CF-3,SV-SP-4,SV-SP-10}{AC-3,CM-12,CP-2,PM-17,RA-5(4),SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-5,SA-10,SC-8(1),SC-28(3),SI-12}	Documentation may reveal architecture details exploitable by adversaries. Proper handling prevents leakage. Protection of CUI supports regulatory compliance. Information governance complements technical controls.
SPR-230	The [organization] shall identify and properly classify mission sensitive design/operations information and access control shall be applied in accordance with classification guides and applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards.{SV-CF-3,SV-AV-5}{AC-3,CM-12,CP-2,PM-17,RA-5(4),SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-5,SA-8(19),SC-8(1),SC-28(3),SI-12}	* Mission sensitive information should be classified as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or formally known as Sensitive but Unclassified. Ideally these artifacts would be rated SECRET or higher and stored on classified networks. Mission sensitive information can typically include a wide range of candidate material: the functional and performance specifications, the RF ICDs, databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of uplink protection including any disabling/bypass features, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and flight/ground /mission operations. This could all need protection at the appropriate level (e.g., unclassified, SBU, classified, etc.) to mitigate levels of cyber intrusions that may be conducted against the project’s networks. Stand-alone systems and/or separate database encryption may be needed with controlled access and on-going Configuration Management to ensure changes in command procedures and critical database areas are tracked, controlled, and fully tested to avoid loss of science or the entire mission.
SPR-231	The [organization] shall distribute documentation to only personnel with defined roles and a need to know.{SV-CF-3,SV-AV-5}{CM-12,CP-2,SA-5,SA-10}	Least privilege and need to know should be employed with the protection of all documentation. Documentation can contain sensitive information that can aid in vulnerability discovery, detection, and exploitation. For example, command dictionaries for ground and space systems should be handles with extreme care. Additionally, design documents for missions contain many key elements that if compromised could aid in an attacker successfully exploiting the system.
SPR-236	The [organization] shall implement a verifiable flaw remediation process into the developmental and operational configuration management process.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-2,CA-5,SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-11,SI-3,SI-3(10)}	The verifiable process should also include a cross reference to mission objectives and impact statements. Understanding the flaws discovered and how they correlate to mission objectives will aid in prioritization.
SPR-237	The [organization] shall establish robust procedures and technical methods to perform testing to include adversarial testing (i.e.abuse cases) of the platform hardware and software.{SV-SP-2,SV-SP-1}{CA-8,CP-4(5),RA-5,RA-5(1),RA-5(2),SA-3,SA-4(3),SA-11,SA-11(1),SA-11(2),SA-11(5),SA-11(7),SA-11(8),SA-15(7)}	Abuse-case testing reveals design weaknesses before deployment. Red-teaming strengthens defensive posture. Proactive validation reduces operational risk. Testing must simulate realistic threat scenarios.
SPR-243	The [organization] shall protect documentation and Essential Elements of Information (EEI) as required, in accordance with the risk management strategy.{SV-CF-3,SV-AV-5}{SA-5}	Essential Elements of Information (EEI):
SPR-251	The [organization] shall maintain evidence of the execution of the security assessment plan and the results of the security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-2,CA-8,SA-11}	Documented evidence provides traceability and accountability for security testing activities. Without retained artifacts, organizations cannot demonstrate due diligence or validate corrective actions. Preserved results support audits, mission reviews, and lessons learned. This strengthens governance and compliance posture.
SPR-252	The [organization] shall create and implement a security assessment plan that includes: (1) The types of analyses, testing, evaluation, and reviews of all software and firmware components; (2) The degree of rigor to be applied to include abuse cases and/or penetration testing; and (3) The types of artifacts produced during those processes.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-2,CA-8,SA-11,SA-11(5)}	The security assessment plan should include evaluation of mission objectives in relation to the security of the mission. Assessments should not only be control based but also functional based to ensure mission is resilient against failures of controls.
SPR-272	The [organization] shall perform static binary analysis of all firmware that is utilized on the spacecraft.{SV-SP-7,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,SA-10,SA-11,SI-7(10)}	Many commercial products/parts are utilized within the system and should be analyzed for security weaknesses. Blindly accepting the firmware is free of weakness is unacceptable for high assurance missions. The intent is to not blindly accept firmware from unknown sources and assume it is secure. This is meant to apply to firmware the vendors are not developing internally. In-house developed firmware should be going through the vendor's own testing program and have high assurance it is secure. When utilizing firmware from other sources, "expecting" does not meet this requirement. Each supplier needs to provide evidence to support that claim that their firmware they are getting is genuine and secure.
SPR-277	In coordination with [organization], the [organization] shall prioritize and remediate flaws identified during security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3}{CA-2,CA-5,SA-11,SI-3,SI-3(10)}	Timely remediation reduces exploitation window. Coordination ensures mission continuity during patching. Documented prioritization demonstrates due diligence. Structured response enhances accountability.
SPR-278	The [organization] shall correct flaws identified during security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11}	Flaws that impact the mission objectives should be prioritized.
SPR-279	The [organization] shall perform [Selection (one or more): unit; integration; system; regression] testing/evaluation at [Program-defined depth and coverage].{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11}	The depth needs to include functional testing as well as negative/abuse testing.
SPR-299	The [organization] shall develop, document, and maintain under configuration control, a current baseline configuration of the spacecrafts.{SV-SP-9,SV-MA-6}{CM-2,CM-3(7),CM-4(2),CM-6,SA-8(30),SA-10}	Configuration control ensures traceability of hardware and software states. Unauthorized changes undermine security posture. Accurate baselines enable recovery and audit. Governance depends on configuration integrity.
SPR-301	The [organization] shall develop a security plan for the spacecraft.{SV-MA-6}{PL-2,PL-7,PM-1,SA-8(29),SA-8(30)}	A comprehensive security plan aligns controls with mission objectives. Clear articulation ensures consistent implementation. Planning integrates security into operations. Formal documentation strengthens accountability.
SPR-302	The [organization] shall document the platform's security architecture, and how it is established within and is an integrated part of the overall [organization] mission security architecture.{SV-MA-6,SV-MA-4}{PL-7,SA-8(7),SA-8(13),SA-8(29),SA-8(30),SA-17}	Architecture documentation provides structural clarity. Integration into enterprise mission security ensures alignment. Clear documentation reduces misinterpretation. Transparency strengthens lifecycle governance.
SPR-345	The [organization] shall update the inventory of spacecraft components as an integral part of component installations, removals, and spacecraft updates.{SV-MA-4,SV-SP-4}{CM-8(1),CA-7,CM-2,CM-3}	Accurate inventory enables vulnerability tracking and incident response. Lifecycle updates prevent undocumented changes. Asset visibility strengthens security management. Configuration awareness reduces blind spots.
SPR-393	The [organization] shall confirm that the operational spacecrafts correspond to the baseline configuration. {SV-SP-9,SV-SP-4}{CM-2,CM-3,CM-3(7),CM-4(2),CM-6,SA-10}	Configuration drift undermines trust and auditability. Confirming alignment ensures deployed assets reflect approved design. Baseline validation supports recovery and compliance. Continuous verification reduces unknown risk.
SPR-403	The [organization] shall develop and document an inventory of the spacecraft components that accurately reflects the to-be launched system. {SV-MA-4,SV-SP-4}{CM-8,CM-2}	Accurate inventory enables vulnerability tracking and configuration validation. Knowing what is deployed supports incident response. Inventory integrity strengthens supply chain assurance. Visibility reduces systemic blind spots.
SPR-404	The [organization] shall establish and formally review the baseline configuration to confirm that it represents an agreed-upon set of specifications for the spacecrafts.{SV-SP-4}{CM-2,CM-6}	Formal baseline review ensures consensus on spacecraft specifications. Structured validation prevents silent drift. Agreement strengthens accountability. Baseline governance supports mission reliability.
SPR-455	The [spacecraft] shall restrict access to flight software executables, cryptographic material, command dictionaries, and [organization]-defined sensitive payload data to the privileged execution domain and shall deny all other access by default.{SV-AC-1,SV-AC-3,SV-IT-3}{AC-3(11),AC-6}	Flight executables and cryptographic materials are high-value targets. Restricting access reduces exploitation pathways. Default deny enforces least privilege. Segmentation enhances resilience.
SPR-456	The [spacecraft] shall implement OS or hardware enforcement for these restrictions and shall log any attempted access violations.{SV-AC-1,SV-DCO-1}{AC-3,AC-3(11)}	Hardware-enforced policy is harder to bypass than software-only controls. Logging violations supports detection and response. Layered enforcement strengthens assurance. Technical barriers reinforce governance intent.
SPR-463	The [spacecraft] shall maintain configuration and cryptographic synchronization required to activate alternate processing or storage and shall verify the alternate before activation.{SV-SP-9,SV-AC-3}{CP-2(6),CM-2}	Activation of alternate nodes requires synchronized keys and configurations. Unsynchronized failover risks data corruption or exposure. Verification before activation prevents propagation of compromised states. Coordinated readiness supports secure recovery.
SPR-472	The [organization] shall define mission and business processes that map mission objectives to space-segment security requirements, including safe-mode criteria, secure uplink and downlink obligations, and recovery procedures, and shall baseline these processes under configuration control.{SV-MA-6,SV-AV-5}{PM-11,PL-2,CM-2}	Security must align with mission objectives. Explicit mapping ensures safe-mode criteria and communication obligations are controlled. Baseline governance prevents undocumented deviations. Integration supports mission assurance.
SPR-482	The [organization] shall require alternative configuration management and acceptance processes for suppliers lacking mature CM, including trusted build reproduction, cryptographic evidence of provenance, and hardware-in-the-loop acceptance testing prior to integration.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{SA-10(2),CM-2}	Suppliers lacking mature CM require compensating controls. Trusted build reproduction and cryptographic evidence reduce risk. Hardware-in-the-loop testing validates integration integrity. Structured mitigation preserves assurance.

Software Version Numbers

Pre-Operations Government

Pre-Operations Developer/Supplier

Sustainment & Maintenance Government

Sustainment & Maintenance Developer/Supplier

NIST Rev5 Controls

D3FEND Techniques

D3FEND Artifacts

ISO 27001

NASA Best Practice Guide

ESA Space Shield Mitigation

Related MITRE EMB3D Mitigations

Related CSF 2.0

Related BSI Security Measures

Techniques Addressed by Countermeasure

Space Threats Addressed by Countermeasure

Sample Requirements