Isolate security functions from nonsecurity functions.
| ID | Name | Description | D3FEND | |
| CM0005 | Ground-based Countermeasures | This countermeasure is focused on the protection of terrestrial assets like ground networks and development environments/contractor networks, etc. Traditional detection technologies and capabilities would be applicable here. Utilizing resources from NIST CSF to properly secure these environments using identify, protect, detect, recover, and respond is likely warranted. Additionally, NISTIR 8401 may provide resources as well since it was developed to focus on ground-based security for space systems (https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/ir/8401/final). Furthermore, the MITRE ATT&CK framework provides IT focused TTPs and their mitigations https://attack.mitre.org/mitigations/enterprise/. Several recommended NIST 800-53 Rev5 controls are provided for reference when designing ground systems/networks. | Nearly all D3FEND Techniques apply to Ground | |
| CM0038 | Segmentation | Identify the key system components or capabilities that require isolation through physical or logical means. Information should not be allowed to flow between partitioned applications unless explicitly permitted by security policy. Isolate mission critical functionality from non-mission critical functionality by means of an isolation boundary (implemented via partitions) that controls access to and protects the integrity of, the hardware, software, and firmware that provides that functionality. Enforce approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information within the spacecraft and between interconnected systems based on the defined security policy that information does not leave the spacecraft boundary unless it is encrypted. Implement boundary protections to separate bus, communications, and payload components supporting their respective functions. | D3-NI D3-BDI D3-NTF D3-ITF D3-OTF D3-EI D3-HBPI D3-KBPI D3-MAC D3-RRID D3-EAL D3-EDL D3-IOPR D3-SCF | |
| ID | Description | |
| SV-MA-3 |
Attacks on critical software subsystems Attitude Determination and Control (AD&C) subsystem determines and controls the orientation of the satellite. Any cyberattack that could disrupt some portion of the control loop - sensor data, computation of control commands, and receipt of the commands would impact operations Telemetry, Tracking and Commanding (TT&C) subsystem provides interface between satellite and ground system. Computations occur within the RF portion of the TT&C subsystem, presenting cyberattack vector Command and Data Handling (C&DH) subsystem is the brains of the satellite. It interfaces with other subsystems, the payload, and the ground. It receives, validate, decodes, and sends commands to other subsystems, and it receives, processes, formats, and routes data for both the ground and onboard computer. C&DH has the most cyber content and is likely the biggest target for cyberattack. Electrical Power Subsystem (EPS) provides, stores, distributes, and controls power on the satellite. An attack on EPS could disrupt, damage, or destroy the satellite. |
|
| SV-AC-6 |
Three main parts of S/C. CPU, memory, I/O interfaces with parallel and/or serial ports. These are connected via busses (i.e., 1553) and need segregated. Supply chain attack on CPU (FPGA/ASICs), supply chain attack to get malware burned into memory through the development process, and rogue RTs on 1553 bus via hosted payloads are all threats. Security or fault management being disabled by non-mission critical or payload; fault injection or MiTM into the 1553 Bus - China has developed fault injector for 1553 - this could be a hosted payload attack if payload has access to main 1553 bus; One piece of FSW affecting another. Things are not containerized from the OS or FSW perspective; |
|
| SV-MA-7 |
Exploit ground system and use to maliciously to interact with the spacecraft |
|
| SV-AV-7 |
The TT&C is the lead contributor to satellite failure over the first 10 years on-orbit, around 20% of the time. The failures due to gyro are around 12% between year one and 6 on-orbit and then ramp up starting around year six and overtake the contributions of the TT&C subsystem to satellite failure. Need to ensure equipment is not counterfeit and the supply chain is sound. |
|
| SPARTA ID | Requirement | Rationale/Additional Guidance/Notes |
|---|---|---|
| SPR-23 | The [spacecraft] shall isolate mission critical functionality from non-mission critical functionality.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3(3),AC-3(4),CA-9,SA-8(3),SA-8(19),SA-17(7),SC-2,SC-3,SC-3(4),SC-7(13),SC-7(29),SC-32,SC-32(1),SI-3,SI-7(10),SI-7(12)} | Non-critical functions often expand attack surface. Isolation prevents less-trusted components from affecting propulsion, attitude control, or power systems. This reduces cascading failure risk under compromise. Mission-critical systems must maintain operational continuity. |
| SPR-42 | The [spacecraft] flight software shall not be able to tamper with the security policy or its enforcement mechanisms.{SV-AC-6}{SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SC-3,SC-7(13)} | Security enforcement must be independent of mission application logic. If FSW can alter policy, adversaries can disable protections post-compromise. This control preserves integrity of access controls and monitoring functions. Separation of enforcement from application reduces systemic risk. |
| SPR-78 | The [spacecraft] shall provide independent mission/cyber critical threads such that any one credible event will not corrupt another mission/cyber critical thread.{SV-AC-6,SV-MA-3,SV-SP-7}{SC-3,SC-32,SC-32(1),SI-3,SI-13} | Segregating mission-critical and cyber-critical execution paths prevents a single failure or compromise from corrupting other critical functions. Thread independence supports fault containment and resilience under attack. This ensures availability of essential functions even during partial compromise. Isolation strengthens both safety and cybersecurity. |
| SPR-184 | The [spacecraft] software subsystems shall provide independent mission/cyber critical threads such that any one credible event will not corrupt another mission/cyber critical thread.{SV-MA-3,SV-AV-7}{SC-3} | Thread isolation prevents cascading failures from a single compromised execution path. Functional independence enhances resilience against exploitation and fault propagation. Critical functions must not share dependencies that create systemic vulnerabilities. Isolation supports containment and recovery. |
| SPR-309 | The [organization] shall identify the key system components or capabilities that require isolation through physical or logical means.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3,SC-3,SC-7(13),SC-28(3),SC-32,SC-32(1)} | Fault management and security management capabilities would be classified as mission critical and likely need separated. Additionally, capabilities like TT&C, C&DH, GNC might need separated as well. |
| SPR-486 | The [spacecraft] shall structure security-relevant software and firmware into cohesive modules that expose only [organization]-approved interfaces and prevent unintended cross-module data or control flow. {SV-AC-6}{SC-3,SC-3(4)} | Cohesive modules reduce unintended coupling. Limited interfaces prevent cross-module exploitation. Clear boundaries strengthen isolation. Structured architecture supports resilience. |
| SPR-487 | The [spacecraft] shall verify during integration that modules providing security functions are isolated from non-security modules and that dependencies are limited to documented interfaces.{SV-AC-6}{SC-3,SC-3(4)} | Integration validation ensures isolation is effective. Limiting dependencies reduces lateral risk. Structured interface enforcement strengthens policy assurance. Verification prevents silent drift. |
| SPR-489 | The [spacecraft] shall host privileged functions, including flight control and cryptographic key management, in physically separate processing domains that have no direct data bus connectivity to non privileged domains. {SV-AC-6,SV-AC-3}{SC-3,SC-32(1),SC-39} | Hardware-level separation prevents software bypass. Isolation protects flight control and key management. Physical boundaries strengthen trust. Segmentation enforces zero-trust architecture. |
| SPR-539 | The [spacecraft] shall ensure security‑critical functions (command authentication, key handling, secure boot) share minimal infrastructure with noncritical services by using separate processing domains or buses where feasible and strict message filtering across boundaries.{SV-MA-7,SV-SP-9}{SC-3,,AC-4,SA-8(11)} | Isolation reduces compromise propagation. Minimal shared infrastructure limits attack surface. Strict message filtering enforces boundaries. Architectural separation strengthens resilience. |
| ID | Name | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| REC-0001 | Gather Spacecraft Design Information | Threat actors seek a coherent picture of the spacecraft and its supporting ecosystem to reduce uncertainty and plan follow-on actions. Useful design information spans avionics architecture, command and data handling, comms and RF chains, power and thermal control, flight dynamics constraints, payload-to-bus interfaces, redundancy schemes, and ground segment dependencies. Artifacts often include ICDs, block diagrams, SBOMs and toolchains, test procedures, AIT travelers, change logs, and “as-built” versus “as-flown” deltas. Adversaries combine open sources (papers, patents, theses, conference slides, procurement documents, FCC/ITU filings, marketing sheets) with gray sources (leaked RFP appendices, vendor manuals, employee resumes, social posts) to infer single points of failure, unsafe modes, or poorly defended pathways between space, ground, and supply chain. The output of this activity is not merely a document set but a working mental model and, often, a lab replica that enables rehearsal, timing studies, and failure-mode exploration. | |
| REC-0001.01 | Software Design | Adversaries target knowledge of flight and ground software to identify exploitable seams and to build high-fidelity emulators for rehearsal. Valuable details include RTOS selection and version, process layout, inter-process messaging patterns, memory maps and linker scripts, fault-detection/isolation/recovery logic, mode management and safing behavior, command handlers and table services, bootloaders, patch/update mechanisms, crypto libraries, device drivers, and test harnesses. Artifacts may be source code, binaries with symbols, stripped images with recognizable patterns, configuration tables, and SBOMs that reveal vulnerable dependencies. With these, a threat actor can reverse engineer command parsing, locate debug hooks, craft inputs that bypass FDIR, or time payload and bus interactions to produce cascading effects. Supply-chain access to vendors of COTS components, open-source communities, or integrators can be used to insert weaknesses or to harvest build metadata. Even partial disclosures, such as a unit test name, an assert message, or a legacy API, shrink the search space for exploitation. | |
| REC-0001.02 | Firmware | Firmware intelligence covers microcontroller images, programmable logic bitstreams, boot ROM behavior, peripheral configuration blobs, and anti-rollback or secure-boot settings for devices on the bus. Knowing device types, versions, and footprints enables inference of default passwords, debug interfaces (JTAG, SWD, UART), timing tolerances, and error handling under brownout or thermal stress. A threat actor may obtain firmware from vendor reference packages, public evaluation boards, leaked manufacturing files, over-the-air update images, or crash dumps. Correlating that with board layouts, harness drawings, or part markings helps map trust boundaries and locate choke points like power controllers, bus bridges, and watchdog supervisors. Attack goals include: preparing malicious but apparently valid updates, exploiting unsigned or weakly verified images, forcing downgrades, or manipulating configuration fuses to weaken later defenses. Even when cryptographic verification is present, knowledge of recovery modes, boot-pin strapping, or maintenance commands can offer alternate paths. | |
| REC-0001.03 | Cryptographic Algorithms | Adversaries look for the complete crypto picture: algorithms and modes, key types and lifecycles, authentication schemes, counter or time-tag handling, anti-replay windows, link-layer protections, and any differences between uplink and downlink policy. With algorithm and key details, a threat actor can craft valid telecommands, masquerade as a trusted endpoint, or degrade availability through replay and desynchronization. Sources include interface specifications, ground software logs, test vectors, configuration files, contractor laptops, and payload-specific ICDs that reuse bus-level credentials. Particular risk arises when command links rely on authentication without confidentiality; once an adversary acquires the necessary keys or counters, they can issue legitimate-looking commands outside official channels. Programs should assume that partial disclosures, MAC length, counter reset rules, or key rotation cadence, aid exploitation. | |
| REC-0001.04 | Data Bus | Bus intelligence focuses on which protocols are used (e.g., MIL-STD-1553, SpaceWire, etc.), controller roles, addressing, timings, arbitration, redundancy management, and the location of critical endpoints on each segment. Knowing the bus controller, remote terminal addresses, message identifiers, and schedule tables allows an adversary to craft frames that collide with or supersede legitimate traffic, to starve health monitoring, or to trigger latent behaviors in payload or power systems. Additional details such as line voltages, termination, connector types, harness pinouts, and EMC constraints inform feasibility of injection and disruption techniques. Attackers assemble this picture from ICDs, vendor datasheets, AIT procedures, harness drawings, lab photos, and academic or trade publications that reveal typical configurations. Enumeration of bridges and gateways is especially valuable because they concentrate trust across fault-containment regions and between payload and bus. | |
| REC-0001.05 | Thermal Control System | Adversaries seek a working map of the thermal architecture and its operating envelopes to anticipate stress points and plan timing for other techniques. Valuable details include passive elements (MLI, coatings, radiators, heat pipes/straps, louvers) and active control (survival and control heaters, thermostats, pumped loops), plus sensor placement, setpoints, deadbands, heater priority tables, and autonomy rules that protect critical hardware during eclipses and anomalies. Artifacts often come from thermal math models (TMMs), TVAC test reports, heater maps and harness drawings, command mnemonics, and on-orbit thermal balance procedures. When correlated with attitude constraints, payload duty cycles, and power budgets, this information lets a threat actor infer when components run close to limits, how safing responds to off-nominal gradients, and where power-thermal couplings can be exploited. Even small fragments, such as louver hysteresis or a heater override used for decontamination, can reveal opportunities to mask heating signatures or provoke nuisance safing. | |
| REC-0001.06 | Maneuver & Control | Threat actors collect details of the guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) stack to predict vehicle response and identify leverage points during station-keeping, momentum management, and anomaly recovery. Useful specifics include propulsion type and layout (monoprop/biprop/electric; thruster locations, minimum impulse bit, plume keep-out zones), reaction wheels/CMGs and desaturation logic, control laws and gains, estimator design (e.g., EKF), timing and synchronization, detumble/safe-mode behaviors, and the full sensor suite (star trackers, sun sensors, gyros/IMUs, GNSS). Artifacts include AOCS/AOCS ICDs, maneuver procedures, delta-v budgets, ephemeris products, scheduler tables, and wheel management timelines. Knowing when and how attitude holds, acquisition sequences, or wheel unloads occur helps an adversary choose windows where injected commands or bus perturbations have outsized effect, or where sensor blinding and spoofing are most disruptive. | |
| REC-0001.07 | Payload | Adversaries pursue a clear picture of payload type, operating modes, command set, and data paths to and from the bus and ground. High-value details include vendor and model, operating constraints (thermal, pointing, contamination), mode transition logic, timing of calibrations, safety inhibits and interlocks, firmware/software update paths, data formatting and compression, and any crypto posture differences between payload links and the main command link. Payload ICDs often reveal addresses, message identifiers, and gateway locations where payload traffic bridges to the C&DH or data-handling networks, creating potential pivot points. Knowledge of duty cycles and scheduler entries enables timing attacks that coincide with high-power or high-rate operations to stress power/thermal margins or saturate storage and downlink. Even partial information, calibration script names, test vectors, or engineering telemetry mnemonics, can shrink the search space for reverse engineering. | |
| REC-0001.08 | Power | Reconnaissance of the electrical power system (EPS) focuses on generation, storage, distribution, and autonomy. Useful details include solar array topology and SADA behavior, MPPT algorithms, array string voltages, eclipse depth assumptions, battery chemistry and configuration, BMS charge/discharge limits and thermal dependencies, PCDU architecture, load-shed priorities, latching current limiters, and survival power rules. Artifacts surface in EPS ICDs, acceptance test data, TVAC power margin reports, anomaly response procedures, and vendor manuals. Correlating these with attitude plans and payload schedules lets a threat actor infer when state-of-charge runs tight, which loads are shed first, and how fast recovery proceeds after a brownout or safing entry. Knowledge of housekeeping telemetry formats and rate caps helps identify blind spots where abusive load patterns or command sequences may evade detection. | |
| REC-0001.09 | Fault Management | Fault management (FDIR/autonomy/safing) materials are a prime reconnaissance target because they encode how the spacecraft detects, classifies, and responds to off-nominal states. Adversaries seek trigger thresholds and persistence timers, voting logic, inhibit and recovery ladders, safe-mode entry/exit criteria, command authority in safed states, watchdog/reset behavior, and any differences between flight and maintenance builds. Artifacts include fault trees, FMEAs, autonomy rule tables, safing flowcharts, and anomaly response playbooks. With these, a threat actor can craft inputs that remain just below detection thresholds, stack benign-looking events to cross safing boundaries at tactically chosen times, or exploit recovery windows when authentication, visibility, or redundancy is reduced. Knowledge of what telemetry is suppressed or rate-limited during safing further aids concealment. | |
| REC-0002 | Gather Spacecraft Descriptors | Threat actors compile a concise but highly actionable dossier of “who/what/where/when” attributes about the spacecraft and mission. Descriptors include identity elements (mission name, NORAD catalog number, COSPAR international designator, call signs), mission class and operator, country of registry, launch vehicle and date, orbit regime and typical ephemerides, and any publicly filed regulatory artifacts (e.g., ITU/FCC filings). They also harvest operational descriptors such as ground network affiliations, common pass windows by latitude band, and staffing patterns implied by press, social media, and schedules. Even when each item is benign, the aggregate picture enables precise timing (e.g., during beta-angle peaks, eclipse seasons, or planned maintenance), realistic social-engineering pretexts, and better targeting of ground or cloud resources that support the mission. | |
| REC-0002.01 | Identifiers | Adversaries enumerate and correlate all identifiers that uniquely tag the vehicle throughout its lifecycle and across systems. Examples include NORAD/Satellite Catalog numbers, COSPAR designators, mission acronyms, spacecraft serials and bus IDs, regulatory call signs, network addresses used by mission services, and any constellation slot or plane tags. These identifiers allow cross-reference across public catalogs, tracking services, regulatory filings, and operator materials, shrinking search spaces for pass prediction, link acquisition, and vendor ecosystem discovery. Seemingly minor clues, like a configuration filename embedding a serial number or an operator using the same short name across environments, can expose test assets or internal tools. Rideshare and hosted-payload contexts introduce additional ambiguity that an attacker can exploit to mask activity or misattribute traffic. | |
| REC-0002.02 | Organization | Threat actors map the human and institutional terrain surrounding the mission to find leverage for phishing, credential theft, invoice fraud, or supply-chain compromise. Targeted details include the owner/operator, prime and subcontractors (bus, payload, ground, launch), key facilities and labs, cloud/SaaS providers, organizational charts, distribution lists, and role/responsibility boundaries for operations, security, and engineering. The objective is to identify who can approve access, who can move money, who holds admin roles on ground and cloud systems, and which vendors maintain remote access for support. Understanding decision chains also reveals when changes control boards meet, when ops handovers occur, and where a single compromised account could bridge enclaves. | |
| REC-0002.03 | Operations | Adversaries collect high-level operational descriptors to predict when the mission will be busy, distracted, or temporarily less instrumented. Useful items include CONOPS overviews, daily/weekly activity rhythms, ground pass schedules, DSN or commercial network windows, calibration and maintenance timelines, planned wheel unloads or thruster burns, conjunction-assessment cycles, and anomaly response playbooks at the level of “who acts when.” For constellations, they seek plane/slot assignments, phasing and drift strategies, crosslink usage, and failover rules between vehicles. These descriptors enable time-targeted campaigns, e.g., sending malicious but syntactically valid commands near handovers, exploiting reduced telemetry during safing, or saturating links during high-rate downlinks. | |
| REC-0003 | Gather Spacecraft Communications Information | Threat actors assemble a detailed picture of the mission’s RF and networking posture across TT&C and payload links. Useful elements include frequency bands and allocations, emission designators, modulation/coding, data rates, polarization sense, Doppler profiles, timing and ranging schemes, link budgets, and expected Eb/N0 margins. They also seek antenna characteristics, beacon structures, and whether transponders are bent-pipe or regenerative. On the ground, they track station locations, apertures, auto-track behavior, front-end filters/LNAs, and handover rules, plus whether services traverse SLE, SDN, or commercial cloud backbones. Even small details, polarization sense, roll-off factors, or beacon cadence, shrink the search space for interception, spoofing, or denial. The outcome is a lab-replicable demod/decode chain and a calendar of advantageous windows. | |
| REC-0003.01 | Communications Equipment | Adversaries inventory space and ground RF equipment to infer capabilities, limits, and attack surfaces. On the spacecraft, they seek antenna type and geometry, placement and boresight constraints, polarization, RF front-end chains, transponder type, translation factors, gain control, saturation points, and protective features. On the ground, they collect dish size/aperture efficiency, feed/polarizer configuration, tracking modes, diversity sites, and backend modem settings. Beacon frequency/structure, telemetry signal type, symbol rates, and framing reveal demodulator parameters and help an actor build compatible SDR pipelines. Knowledge of power budgets and AGC behavior enables strategies to push hardware into non-linear regimes, causing self-inflicted denial or intermodulation. Equipment location and mounting inform visibility and interference opportunities. | |
| REC-0003.02 | Commanding Details | Threat actors study how commands are formed, authorized, scheduled, and delivered. High-value details include the telecommand protocol (e.g., CCSDS TC), framing and CRC/MAC fields, authentication scheme (keys, counters, anti-replay windows), command dictionary/database formats, critical-command interlocks and enable codes, rate and size limits, timetag handling, command queue semantics, and the roles of scripts or procedures that batch actions. They also collect rules governing “valid commanding periods”: line-of-sight windows, station handovers, maintenance modes, safing states, timeouts, and when rapid-response commanding is permitted. With this, an adversary can craft syntactically valid traffic, time injections to coincide with reduced monitoring, or induce desynchronization (e.g., counter resets, stale timetags). | |
| REC-0003.03 | Mission-Specific Channel Scanning | Beyond TT&C, many missions expose additional RF or network surfaces: high-rate payload downlinks (e.g., X/Ka-band), user terminals, inter-satellite crosslinks, and hosted-payload channels that may be operated by different organizations. Adversaries scan spectrum and public telemetry repositories for these mission-specific channels, characterizing carrier plans, burst structures, access schemes (TDMA/FDMA/CDMA), addressing, and gateway locations. For commercial services, they enumerate forward/return links, user terminal waveforms, and provisioning backends that could be impersonated or jammed selectively. In hosted-payload or rideshare contexts, differences in configuration control and key management present opportunities for pivoting between enclaves. | |
| REC-0003.04 | Valid Credentials | Adversaries seek any credential that would let them authenticate as a legitimate actor in space, ground, or supporting cloud networks. Targets include TT&C authentication keys and counters, link-encryption keys, PN codes or spreading sequences, modem and gateway accounts, mission control mission control user and service accounts, station control credentials, VPN and identity-provider tokens, SLE/CSP service credentials, maintenance backdoor accounts, and automation secrets embedded in scripts or CI/CD pipelines. Acquisition paths include spear-phishing, supply-chain compromise, credential reuse across dev/test/ops, logs and core dumps, misconfigured repositories, contractor laptops, and improperly sanitized training data. Because some missions authenticate uplink without encrypting it, possession of valid keys or counters may be sufficient to issue accepted commands from outside official channels. | |
| REC-0004 | Gather Launch Information | Adversaries collect structured launch intelligence to forecast when and how mission assets will transition through their most time-compressed, change-prone phase. Useful elements include the launch date/time windows, launch site and range operator, participating organizations (launch provider, integrator, range safety, telemetry networks), vehicle family and configuration, fairing type, and upper-stage restart profiles. This picture enables realistic social-engineering pretexts, supply-chain targeting of contractors, and identification of auxiliary systems (range instrumentation, TLM/FTS links) that may be less hardened than the spacecraft itself. Knowledge of ascent comms (bands, beacons, ground stations), early-orbit operations (LEOP) procedures, and handovers to mission control further informs when authentication, staffing, or telemetry margins may be tight. | |
| REC-0004.01 | Flight Termination | Threat actors may attempt to learn how the launch vehicle’s flight termination capability is architected and governed, command-destruct versus autonomous flight termination (AFTS), authority chains, cryptographic protections, arming interlocks, inhibit ladders, telemetry indicators, and range rules for safe-flight criteria. While FTS is a range safety function, its interfaces (command links, keys, timing sources, decision logic) can reveal design patterns, dependencies, and potential misconfigurations across the broader launch ecosystem. Knowledge of test modes, simulation harnesses, and pre-launch checks could inform social-engineering or availability-degrading actions against range or contractor systems during critical windows. | |
| REC-0006 | Gather FSW Development Information | Adversaries collect a cradle-to-operations view of how flight software is built, tested, signed, and released. Useful artifacts include architecture docs, source trees and SBOMs, compiler/linker toolchains and flags, RTOS and middleware versions, build scripts, CI/CD pipelines, code-signing workflows, defect trackers, and release notes that describe “as-built” vs. “as-flown” deltas. They also seek integration environments, emulators/SIL, flatsats/iron birds, hardware-in-the-loop rigs, and the autonomy/FDIR logic that governs mode transitions and patch acceptance. With this knowledge, a threat actor can identify weak crypto or provenance controls on update paths, predict error-handling behavior, and craft inputs that slip past unit/integration tests. Even small disclosures (e.g., a linker script, an assert string, or a sanitized crash dump) shrink the search space for exploitation. | |
| REC-0006.01 | Development Environment | Threat actors enumerate the exact environment used to produce flight builds: IDEs and plugins, cross-compilers and SDKs, container images/VMs, environment variables, path conventions, build systems, static libraries, and private package registries. They correlate repository layouts (mono- vs multi-repo), branch and review policies, protected branches/tags, and CI orchestrators to find where policy gaps allow unreviewed code or tool updates. Secrets embedded in configs (tokens, service accounts), permissive compiler/linker flags, or disabled hardening options are especially valuable. Knowledge of debug/diagnostic builds, symbol servers, and crash-dump handling lets an adversary reconstruct higher-fidelity testbeds or derive function boundaries in stripped images. | |
| REC-0006.02 | Security Testing Tools | Adversaries study how you test to learn what you don’t test. They inventory static analyzers and coding standards (MISRA/C, CERT, CWE rulesets), dynamic tools (address/UB sanitizers, valgrind-class tools), fuzzers targeted at command parsers and protocols (e.g., CCSDS TC/TM, payload formats), property-based tests, mutation testing, coverage thresholds, and formal methods applied to mode logic or crypto. They also examine HIL setups, fault-injection frameworks, timing/jitter tests, and regression suites that gate release. Gaps, such as minimal negative testing on rare modes, weak corpus diversity, or untested rate/size limits, inform exploit design and the timing of inputs to evade FDIR or saturate queues. | |
| REC-0007 | Monitor for Safe-Mode Indicators | Adversaries watch for telltale signs that the spacecraft has entered a safed or survival configuration, typically sun-pointing or torque-limited attitude, reduced payload activity, conservative power/thermal setpoints, and low-rate engineering downlink. Indicators include specific mode bits or beacon fields, changes in modulation/coding and cadence, distinctive event packets (e.g., wheel unload aborts, brownout recovery), elevated heater duty, altered load-shed states, and operator behaviors such as emergency DSN requests, longer ground passes, or public anomaly notices. This reconnaissance helps time later actions to coincide with periods of reduced bandwidth, altered monitoring, or maintenance command availability. It may also reveal how safing affects authentication (e.g., whether rapid-response paths or recovery consoles differ from nominal). | |
| 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. | |
| REC-0008.01 | Hardware Recon | Adversaries seek insight into component sources, screening levels, test histories, and configuration states to prepare pre-delivery manipulation of boards and modules. High-value details include ASIC/FPGA part numbers and stepping, security fuses and life-cycle states, JTAG/SWD access policies, secure-boot and anti-rollback configuration, golden bitstream handling, board layouts and test points, conformal coat practices, and acceptance test procedures with allowable tolerances. Knowledge of substitute/alternate parts, counterfeit screening thresholds, and waiver histories reveals where counterfeit insertion or parametric “near-miss” parts might evade detection. For programmable logic, attackers target synthesis/place-and-route toolchains, IP core versions, and bitstream encryption keys to enable hardware Trojans or debug backdoors that survive functional test. Logistics artifacts (packing lists, RMA workflows, depot addresses) expose moments when custody is thin and tamper opportunities expand. | |
| REC-0008.02 | 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). | |
| REC-0008.03 | 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. | |
| REC-0008.04 | Business Relationships | Threat actors map contractual and operational relationships to identify the weakest well-connected node. They enumerate primes and subs (bus, payload, ground, launch), managed service providers, ground-network operators, cloud/SaaS tenants, testing and calibration labs, logistics and customs brokers, and warranty/repair depots, plus who holds remote access, who moves money, and who approves changes. Public artifacts (press releases, procurement records, org charts, job postings, conference bios) and technical traces (email MX/DMARC, shared SSO/IdP providers, cross-domain service accounts) reveal trust bridges between enclaves. Shipment paths and integration schedules expose when and where hardware and sensitive data concentrate. Understanding these ties enables tailored phishing, invoice fraud, credential reuse, and supply-chain insertion timed to integration milestones. | |
| REC-0009 | Gather Mission Information | Adversaries compile a CONOPS-level portrait of the mission to predict priorities, constraints, and operational rhythms. They harvest stated needs, goals, and performance measures; enumerate key elements/instruments and their duty cycles; and extract mode logic, operational constraints (pointing, keep-outs, contamination, thermal/power margins), and contingency concepts. They mine the scientific and engineering basis, papers, algorithms, calibration methods, to anticipate data value, processing chains, and where integrity or availability attacks would have maximal effect. They correlate physical and support environments (ground networks, cloud pipelines, data distribution partners, user communities) and public schedules (campaigns, calibrations, maneuvers) to identify periods of elevated workload or reduced margin. The aim is not merely understanding but timing: choosing moments when authentication might be relaxed, monitoring is saturated, or rapid-response authority is invoked. | |
| RD-0002 | Compromise Infrastructure | Rather than purchasing or renting assets, adversaries compromise existing infrastructure, mission-owned, third-party, or shared, to obtain ready-made reach into space, ground, or cloud environments with the benefit of plausible attribution. Targets range from physical RF chains and timing sources to mission control servers, automation/scheduling systems, SLE/CSP gateways, identity providers, and cloud data paths. Initial access often comes via stolen credentials, spear-phishing of operators and vendors, exposed remote-support paths, misconfigured multi-tenant platforms, or lateral movement from enterprise IT into operations enclaves. Once resident, actors can pre-position tools, modify configurations, suppress logging, and impersonate legitimate stations or operators to support later Execution, Exfiltration, or Denial. | |
| RD-0002.01 | Mission-Operated Ground System | Compromising a mission’s own ground system grants the adversary preconfigured access to TT&C and automation. High-value targets include operator workstations, mission control servers, procedure libraries, scheduler/orchestration services, key-loading tools and HSMs, antenna control systems, timing/distribution, and RF modems/baseband units. Typical paths: phishing an operator or contractor, abusing remote-support channels, pivoting from enterprise IT to ops, exploiting unpatched services on enclave gateways, or harvesting credentials from poorly segmented test environments. Once inside, an actor can stage malicious procedures, alter rate/size limits, manipulate pass schedules, downgrade authentication in maintenance modes, or quietly siphon telemetry and ephemerides to refine later attacks. | |
| RD-0002.02 | 3rd Party Ground System | Third-party networks (commercial ground stations, hosted modems, cloud-integrated ground-station services) present attractive stepping-stones: they already have vetted RF chains, globally distributed apertures, and trusted IP space. Adversaries may acquire customer credentials via phishing or purchase, exploit weak vetting to create front-company accounts, or compromise provider portals/APIs to submit schedules, alter front-end settings, or exfiltrate collected data. Because traffic originates from “expected” stations and ASN ranges, misuse blends into normal operations. Multi-tenant risks include configuration bleed-over and shared management planes. | |
| RD-0003 | Obtain Cyber Capabilities | Adversaries acquire ready-made tools, code, and knowledge so they can move faster and with lower attribution when operations begin. Capabilities span commodity malware and loaders, bespoke implants for mission control mission control and ground enclaves, privilege-escalation and lateral-movement kits, SDR/codec stacks for TT&C and payload links, fuzzers and protocol harnesses, exploit chains for RTOS/middleware and ground services, and databases of configuration playbooks from prior intrusions. Actors prefer modular kits that can be re-skinned (new C2, new certs) and exercised in flatsat or SIL/HIL labs before use. They also collect operational “how-tos”, procedures, scripts, and operator macros, that convert technical access into mission effects. | |
| RD-0003.02 | Cryptographic Keys | Adversaries seek any cryptographic material that confers command or decryption authority: uplink authentication/MAC keys and counters, link-encryption/session keys and KEKs, loading/transfer keys for HSMs, PN/spreading codes, modem credentials, and station or crosslink keys. Acquisition routes include compromised ground systems and laptops, misconfigured repositories and ticket systems, memory/core dumps, training datasets and screenshots, contractor support channels, and poorly controlled key-loading or recovery procedures. Because some missions authenticate uplink without encrypting it, possession of the right keys/counters may be sufficient to inject accepted commands outside official channels or to desynchronize anti-replay. | |
| RD-0004 | Stage Capabilities | Before execution, adversaries prepare the ground, literally and figuratively. They upload tooling, exploits, procedures, and datasets to infrastructure they own or have compromised, wire up C2 and telemetry pipelines, and pre-configure RF/baseband chains and protocol stacks to match mission parameters. Staging often uses cloud object stores, VPS fleets, or CI/CD runners masquerading as benign automation; artifacts are containerized or signed with hijacked material to blend in. For RF operations, actors assemble demod/encode flowgraphs, precompute CRC/MAC fields and timetags, and script rate/size pacing to fit pass windows. For ground/cloud, they stage credentials, macros, and schedule templates that can push changes or exfiltrate data quickly during handovers or safing. Dry-runs on flatsats/HIL rigs validate timing and error paths; OPSEC measures (rotating domains, domain fronting, traffic mixers) reduce attribution. | |
| RD-0004.01 | Identify/Select Delivery Mechanism | Adversaries select the pathway that best balances effect, risk, bandwidth, and attribution. Options include over-the-air telecommand injection on TT&C links, manipulation of payload downlinks or user terminals, abuse of crosslinks or gateways, pivoting through commercial ground networks, or pushing malicious updates via supply-chain paths (software, firmware, bitstreams). Selection considers modulation/coding, Doppler and polarization, anti-replay windows, pass geometry, rate/size limits, and expected operator workload (handover, LEOP, safing exits). For ground/cloud paths, actors account for identity boundaries, automation hooks, and change-control cadence. The “delivery mechanism” is end-to-end: RF front-end (antenna, converters, HPAs), baseband/SDR chain, protocol/framing, authentication/counter handling, scheduling, and fallbacks if detection occurs. Rehearsal artifacts, test vectors, mock dictionaries, ephemerides, are built alongside. | |
| RD-0004.02 | Upload Exploit/Payload | Having chosen a path, adversaries pre-position the specific packages and procedures they intend to use: binary exploits, malicious tables and ephemerides, patch images, modem profiles, and operator macros that chain actions. On compromised or leased infrastructure, they stage these items where execution will be fastest, provider portals, scheduler queues, ground station file drops, or automation repos, with triggers tied to pass start, beacon acquisition, or operator shift changes. Artifacts are formatted to mission protocols (framing, CRC/MAC, timetags), chunked to meet rate/size constraints, and signed or wrapped to evade superficial checks. Anti-forensics (timestamp tampering, log suppression, ephemeral storage) reduce audit visibility, while fallback payloads are kept for alternate modes (safe-mode dictionaries, recovery consoles). | |
| IA-0002 | Compromise Software Defined Radio | Adversaries target SDR-based transceivers and payload radios because reconfigurable waveforms, FPGA bitstreams, and software flowgraphs create programmable footholds. Manipulation can occur in the radio’s development pipeline (toolchains, out-of-tree modules), at integration (loading of bitstreams, DSP coefficients, calibration tables), or in service via update channels that deliver new waveforms or patches. On-orbit SDRs often expose control planes (command sets for mode/load/select), data planes (baseband I/Q), and management/telemetry paths, any of which can embed covert behavior, alternate demod paths, or hidden subcarriers. A compromised SDR can establish clandestine command-and-control by activating non-public waveforms, piggybacking on idle fields, or toggling to time/ephemeris-triggered profiles that blend with nominal operations. On the ground, compromised SDR modems can be used to fabricate mission-compatible emissions or to decode protected downlinks for reconnaissance. Attackers leverage the SDR’s malleability so that malicious signaling, once seeded, presents as a legitimate but rarely exercised configuration. | |
| IA-0004 | Secondary/Backup Communication Channel | Adversaries pursue alternative paths to the spacecraft that differ from the primary TT&C in configuration, monitoring, or authentication. Examples include backup MOC/ground networks, contingency TT&C chains, maintenance or recovery consoles, low-rate emergency beacons, and secondary receivers or antennas on the vehicle. These channels exist to preserve commandability during outages, safing, or maintenance; they may use different vendors, legacy settings, or simplified procedures. Initial access typically pairs reconnaissance of failover rules with actions that steer operations onto the backup path, natural events, induced denial on the primary, or simple patience until scheduled tests and handovers occur. Once traffic flows over the alternate path, the attacker leverages its distinct procedures, dictionaries, or rate/size limits to introduce commands or data that would be harder to inject on the primary. | |
| IA-0004.01 | Ground Station | Threat actors may target the backup ground segment, standby MOC sites, alternate commercial stations, or contingency chains held in reserve. Threat actors establish presence on the backup path (operator accounts, scheduler/orchestration, modem profiles, antenna control) and then exploit moments when operations shift: planned exercises, maintenance at the primary site, weather diversions, or failover during anomalies. They may also shape conditions so traffic is re-routed, e.g., by saturating the primary’s RF front end or consuming its schedules, without revealing their involvement. Once on the backup, prepositioned procedures, macros, or configuration sets allow command injection, manipulation of pass timelines, or quiet collection of downlink telemetry. | |
| IA-0005 | Rendezvous & Proximity Operations | Adversaries may execute a sequence of orbital maneuvers to co-orbit and approach a target closely enough for local sensing, signaling, or physical interaction. Proximity yields advantages that are difficult to achieve from Earth: high signal-to-noise for interception, narrowly targeted interference or spoofing, observation of attitude/thermal behavior, and, if interfaces exist, opportunities for mechanical mating. The approach typically unfolds through phasing, far-field rendezvous, relative navigation (e.g., vision, lidar, crosslink cues), and closed-loop final approach. At close distances, an attacker can monitor side channels, stimulate acquisition beacons, test crosslinks, or prepare for contact operations (capture or docking). | |
| IA-0005.02 | Docked Vehicle / OSAM | Docking, berthing, or service capture during on-orbit servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (OSAM) creates a high-trust bridge between vehicles. Threat actors exploit this moment, either by pre-positioning code on a servicing vehicle or by manipulating ground updates to it, so that, once docked, lateral movement occurs across the mechanical/electrical interface. Interfaces may expose power and data umbilicals, standardized payload ports, or gateways into the target’s C&DH or payload networks (e.g., SpaceWire, Ethernet, 1553). Service tools that push firmware, load tables, transfer files, or share time/ephemeris become conduits for staged procedures or implants that execute under maintenance authority. Malware can be timed to activation triggers such as “link up,” “maintenance mode entered,” or specific device enumerations that only appear when docked. Because OSAM operations are scheduled and well-documented, the adversary can align preparation with published timelines, ensuring that the first point of execution coincides with the brief window when cross-vehicle trust is intentionally elevated. | |
| IA-0005.03 | Proximity Grappling | In this variant, the attacker employs a capture mechanism (robotic arm, grappling fixture, magnetic or mechanical coupler) to establish physical contact without full docking. Once grappled, covers can be manipulated, temporary umbilicals attached, or exposed test points engaged; if design provisions exist (service ports, checkout connectors, external debug pads), these become direct pathways to device programming interfaces (e.g., JTAG/SWD/UART), mass-storage access, or maintenance command sets. Grappling also enables precise attitude control relative to the target, allowing contact-based sensors to read buses inductively or capacitively, or to inject signals onto harness segments reachable from the exterior. Initial access arises when a maintenance or debug path, normally latent in flight, is electrically or logically completed by the grappled connection, allowing authentication-bypassing actions such as boot-mode strapping, image replacement, or scripted command ingress. The operation demands accurate geometry, approach constraints, and fixture knowledge, but yields a transient, high-privilege bridge tailored for short, decisive actions that leave minimal on-orbit RF signature. | |
| IA-0006 | Compromise Hosted Payload | Adversaries target hosted payloads as an alternate doorway into the host spacecraft. Hosted payloads often expose their own command sets, file services, and telemetry paths, sometimes via the host’s TT&C chain, sometimes through a parallel ground infrastructure under different operational control. Initial access arises when an attacker obtains the ability to issue payload commands, upload files, or alter memory/register state on the hosted unit. Because data and control must traverse an interface to the host bus (power, time, housekeeping, data routing, gateway processors), the payload–host boundary can also carry management functions: mode transitions, table loads, firmware updates, and cross-strapped links that appear only in maintenance or contingency modes. With knowledge of the interface specification and command dictionaries, a threat actor can activate rarely used modes, inject crafted data products, or trigger gateway behaviors that extend influence beyond the payload itself. In multi-tenant or commercial hosting arrangements, differences in keying, procedures, or scheduling between the payload operator and the bus operator provide additional opportunity for a first foothold that looks like routine payload commanding. | |
| IA-0007 | Compromise Ground System | Compromising the ground segment gives an adversary the most direct path to first execution against a spacecraft. Ground systems encompass operator workstations and mission control mission control software, scheduling/orchestration services, front-end processors and modems, antenna control, key-loading tools and HSMs, data gateways (SLE/CSP), identity providers, and cloud-hosted mission services. Once inside, a threat actor can prepare on-orbit updates, craft and queue valid telecommands, replay captured traffic within acceptance windows, or manipulate authentication material and counters to pass checks. The same foothold enables deep reconnaissance: enumerating mission networks and enclaves, discovering which satellites are operated from a site, mapping logical topology between MOC and stations, identifying in-band “birds” reachable from a given aperture, and learning pass plans, dictionaries, and automation hooks. From there, initial access to the spacecraft is a matter of timing and presentation, injecting commands, procedures, or update packages that align with expected operations so the first execution event appears indistinguishable from normal activity. | |
| IA-0007.01 | Compromise On-Orbit Update | Adversaries may target the pipeline that produces and transmits updates to an on-orbit vehicle. Manipulation points include source repositories and configuration tables, build and packaging steps that generate images or differential patches, staging areas on ground servers, update metadata (versions, counters, manifests), and the transmission process itself. Spacecraft updates span flight software patches, FPGA bitstreams, bootloader or device firmware loads, and operational data products such as command tables, ephemerides, and calibration files, each with distinct formats, framing, and acceptance rules. An attacker positioned in the ground system can substitute or modify an artifact, alter its timing and timetags to match pass windows, and queue it through the same procedures operators use for nominal maintenance. Activation can be immediate or deferred: implants may lie dormant until a specific mode, safing entry, or table index is referenced. | |
| IA-0007.02 | Malicious Commanding via Valid GS | Adversaries may use a compromised, mission-owned ground system to transmit legitimate-looking commands to the target spacecraft. Because the ground equipment is already configured for the mission, correct waveforms, framing, dictionaries, and scheduling, the attacker’s traffic blends with routine operations. Initial access unfolds by inserting commands or procedures into existing timelines, modifying rate/size limits or command queues, or invoking maintenance dictionaries and rapid-response workflows that accept broader command sets. Pre-positioned scripts can chain actions across multiple passes and stations, while telemetry routing provides immediate feedback to refine follow-on steps. Exfiltration can be embedded in standard downlink channels or forwarded through gateways as ordinary mission data. The distinguishing feature is that command origin appears valid, transmitted from approved apertures using expected parameters, so the first execution event is not a protocol anomaly but a misuse of legitimate command authority obtained through the compromised ground system. | |
| IA-0009 | Trusted Relationship | Adversaries obtain first execution by riding connections that the mission already trusts, formal interconnections with partners, vendors, and user communities. Once a third party is compromised, the actor inherits that entity’s approved routes into mission enclaves: VPNs and jump hosts into ground networks, API keys into cloud tenants, automated file drops that feed command or update pipelines, and collaboration spaces where procedures and dictionaries circulate. Because traffic, credentials, and artifacts originate from known counterparts, the initial execution event can appear as a routine payload task, scheduled procedure, or software update promoted through established processes. | |
| IA-0009.01 | Mission Collaborator (academia, international, etc.) | Missions frequently depend on distributed teams, instrument builders at universities, science operations centers, and international partners, connected by data portals, shared repositories, and federated credentials. A compromise of a collaborator yields access to telescience networks, analysis pipelines, instrument commanding tools, and file exchanges that deliver ephemerides, calibration products, procedures, or configuration tables into mission workflows. Partners may operate their own ground elements or payload gateways under delegated authority, creating additional entry points whose authentication and logging differ from the prime’s. Initial access emerges when attacker-modified artifacts or commands traverse these sanctioned paths: a revised calibration script uploaded through a science portal, a configuration table promoted by a cross-org CI job, or a payload task submitted via a collaboration queue and forwarded by the prime as routine work. Variations in process rigor, identity proofing, and toolchains across institutions amplify the attacker’s options while preserving the appearance of legitimate partner activity. | |
| IA-0009.02 | Vendor | Vendors that design, integrate, or support mission systems often hold elevated, persistent routes into operations: remote administration of ground software and modems, access to identity providers and license servers, control of cloud-hosted services, and authority to deliver firmware, bitstreams, or patches. Attackers who compromise a vendor’s enterprise or build environment can assume these roles, issuing commands through approved consoles, queuing updates in provider-operated portals, or invoking maintenance procedures that the mission expects the vendor to perform. Some vendor pathways terminate directly on RF equipment or key-management infrastructure; others ride cross-account cloud roles or managed SaaS backends that handle mission data and scheduling. | |
| IA-0009.03 | User Segment | The “user segment” encompasses end users and their equipment that interact with mission services, SATCOM terminals, customer ground gateways, tasking portals, and downstream processing pipelines for delivered data. Where these environments interconnect with mission cores, a compromised user domain becomes a springboard. Attackers can inject malformed tasking requests that propagate into payload scheduling, craft user-plane messages that traverse gateways into control or management planes, or seed data products that flow back to mission processing systems and automation. In broadband constellations and hosted services, user terminals may share infrastructure with TT&C or provider management networks, creating opportunities to pivot from customer equipment into provider-run nodes that the spacecraft trusts. | |
| IA-0011 | Auxiliary Device Compromise | Adversaries abuse peripherals and removable media that the spacecraft (or its support equipment) ingests during development, I&T, or on-orbit operations. Small satellites and hosted payloads frequently expose standard interfaces, USB, UART, Ethernet, SpaceWire, CAN, or mount removable storage for loading ephemerides, tables, configuration bundles, or firmware. A tainted device can masquerade as a trusted class (mass-storage, CDC/HID) or present crafted files that trigger auto-ingest workflows, file watchers, or maintenance utilities. Malware may be staged by modifying the peripheral’s firmware, seeding the images written by lab formatting tools, or swapping media during handling. Once connected, the device can deliver binaries, scripts, or malformed data products that execute under existing procedures. Because these interactions often occur during hurried timelines (checkouts, rehearsals, contingency maintenance), the initial execution blends with legitimate peripheral use while traversing a path already privileged to reach flight software or controllers. | |
| IA-0012 | Assembly, Test, and Launch Operation Compromise | Assembly, Test, and Launch Operation (ATLO) concentrates people, tools, and authority while components first exchange real traffic across flight interfaces. Test controllers, EGSE, simulators, flatsats, loaders, and data recorders connect to the same buses and command paths that will exist on orbit. Threat actors exploit this density and dynamism: compromised laptops or transient cyber assets push images and tables; lab networks bridge otherwise separate enclaves; vendor support accounts move software between staging and flight hardware; and “golden” artifacts created or modified in ATLO propagate into the as-flown baseline. Malware can traverse shared storage and scripting environments, ride update/checklist execution, or piggyback on protocol translators and gateways used to stimulate subsystems. Because ATLO often introduces late firmware loads, key/counter initialization, configuration freezes, and full-system rehearsals, a single well-placed change can yield first execution on multiple devices and persist into LEOP. | |
| IA-0013 | Compromise Host Spacecraft | The inverse of "IA-0006: Compromise Hosted Payload", this technique describes adversaries that are targeting a hosted payload, the host space vehicle (SV) can serve as an initial access vector to compromise the payload through vulnerabilities in the SV's onboard systems, communication interfaces, or software. If the SV's command and control systems are exploited, an attacker could gain unauthorized access to the vehicle's internal network. Once inside, the attacker may laterally move to the hosted payload, particularly if it shares data buses, processors, or communication links with the vehicle. | |
| EX-0001 | Replay | Replay is the re-transmission of previously captured traffic, over RF links, crosslinks, or internal buses, to elicit the same processing and effects a second time. Adversaries first observe and record authentic exchanges (telecommands, ranging/acquisition frames, housekeeping telemetry acknowledgments, bus messages), then resend them within acceptance conditions that the system recognizes, matching link geometry, timetags, counters, or mode states. The aim can be functional (re-triggering an action such as a mode change), observational (fingerprinting how the vehicle reacts at different states), or disruptive (saturating queues and bandwidth to crowd out legitimate traffic). Because replays preserve valid syntax and often valid context, they can blend with normal operations, especially during periods with reduced monitoring or when counters and windows reset (e.g., handovers, safing entries). On encrypted links, metadata replays (acquisition beacons, schedule requests) may still yield informative responses. | |
| EX-0001.02 | Bus Traffic Replay | Instead of the RF path, the attacker targets internal command/data handling by injecting or retransmitting messages on the spacecraft bus (e.g., 1553, SpaceWire, custom). Because many subsystems act on the latest message or on message rate rather than on uniqueness, a flood of historical yet well-formed frames can consume bandwidth, starve critical publishers, or cause subsystems to perform the same action repeatedly. Secondary effects include stale sensor values being re-consumed, watchdog timers being reset at incorrect intervals, and autonomy rules misclassifying the situation due to out-of-order but valid-looking events. On time-triggered or scheduled buses, replaying at precise offsets can collide with or supersede legitimate messages, steering system state without changing software. The goal is to harness the bus’s determinism, repeating prior internal stimuli to recreate prior effects or to induce resource exhaustion. | |
| EX-0012 | Modify On-Board Values | The attacker alters live or persistent data that the spacecraft uses to make decisions and route work. Targets include device and control registers, parameter and limit tables, internal routing/subscriber maps, schedules and timelines, priority/QoS settings, watchdog and timer values, autonomy/FDIR rule tables, ephemeris and attitude references, and power/thermal setpoints. Many missions expose legitimate mechanisms for updating these artifacts, direct memory read/write commands, table load services, file transfers, or maintenance procedures, which can be invoked to steer behavior without changing code. Edits may be transient (until reset) or latched/persistent across boots; they can be narrowly scoped (a single bit flip on an enable mask) or systemic (rewriting a routing table so commands are misdelivered). The effect space spans subtle biasing of control loops, selective blackholing of commands or telemetry, rescheduling of operations, and wholesale changes to mode logic, all accomplished by modifying the values the software already trusts and consumes. | |
| EX-0012.01 | Registers | Threat actors may target the internal registers of the victim spacecraft in order to modify specific values as the FSW is functioning or prevent certain subsystems from working. Most aspects of the spacecraft rely on internal registers to store important data and temporary values. By modifying these registers at certain points in time, threat actors can disrupt the workflow of the subsystems or onboard payload, causing them to malfunction or behave in an undesired manner. | |
| EX-0012.02 | Internal Routing Tables | Threat actors may rewrite the maps that tell software where to send and receive things. In publish/subscribe or message-queued flight frameworks, tables map message IDs to subscribers, opcodes to handlers, and pipes to processes; at interfaces, address/port maps define how traffic traverses bridges and gateways (e.g., SpaceWire node/port routes, 1553 RT/subaddress mappings, CAN IDs). By altering these structures, commands can be misdelivered, dropped, duplicated, or routed through unintended paths; telemetry can be redirected or blackholed; and handler bindings can be swapped so an opcode triggers the wrong function. Schedule/routing hybrids, used to sequence activities and distribute results, can be edited to reorder execution or to create feedback loops that occupy bandwidth and processor time. The result is control over who hears what and when, achieved by changing the lookup tables that underpin command/telemetry distribution rather than the code that processes them. | |
| EX-0012.03 | Memory Write/Loads | The adversary uses legitimate direct-memory commands or load services to place chosen bytes at chosen addresses. Many spacecraft support raw read/write operations, block loads into RAM or non-volatile stores, and table/file loaders that copy content into working memory. With knowledge of address maps and data structures, an attacker can patch function pointers or vtables, alter limit and configuration records, seed scripts or procedures into interpreter buffers, adjust DMA descriptors, or overwrite portions of executable images resident in RAM. Loads may be sized and paced to fit link and queue constraints, then activated by a subsequent command, mode change, or natural reference by the software. | |
| EX-0012.04 | App/Subscriber Tables | In publish/subscribe flight frameworks, applications and subsystems register interest in specific message classes via subscriber (or application) tables. These tables map message IDs/topics to subscribers, define delivery pipes/queues, and often include filters, priorities, and rate limits. By altering these mappings, an adversary can quietly reshape information flow: critical consumers stop receiving health or sensor messages; non-critical tasks get flooded; handlers are rebound so an opcode or message ID reaches the wrong task; or duplicates create feedback loops that consume bandwidth and CPU. Because subscription state is usually read at init or refreshed on command, subtle edits can persist across reboots or take effect at predictable times. Similar effects appear in legacy MIL-STD-1553 deployments by modifying Remote Terminal (RT), subaddress, or mode-code configurations so that messages are misaddressed or dropped at the bus interface. The net result is control-by-misdirection: the software still “works,” but the right data no longer reaches the right recipient at the right time. | |
| EX-0012.05 | Scheduling Algorithm | Spacecraft typically rely on real-time scheduling, fixed-priority or deadline/periodic schemes, driven by timers, tick sources, and per-task parameters. Threat actors target these parameters and associated tables to skew execution order and timing. Edits may change priorities, periods, or deadlines; adjust CPU budgets and watchdog thresholds; alter ready-queue disciplines; or reconfigure timer tick rates and clock sources. They may also modify task affinities, message-queue depths, and interrupt masks so preemption and latency characteristics shift. Small changes can have large effects: high-rate control loops see added jitter, estimator updates miss deadlines, command/telemetry handling starves, or low-priority maintenance tasks monopolize cores due to mis-set periods. Manipulated schedules can create intermittent, state-dependent malfunctions that are hard to distinguish from environmental load. The essence of the technique is to weaponize time, reshaping when work happens so that otherwise correct code produces unsafe or exploitable behavior. | |
| EX-0012.06 | Science/Payload Data | Payload data, and the metadata that gives it meaning, can be altered in place to steal value, mislead users, or degrade mission outputs. Targets include raw detector frames, packetized Level-0 streams, onboard preprocessed products, and file catalogs/directories on mass memory. Adjacent metadata such as timestamps, pointing/attitude tags, calibration coefficients, compression settings, and quality flags are equally potent; slight bias in a calibration table or time tag can skew entire downlink campaigns while appearing routine. An adversary may rewrite frame headers, reorder packets, substitute segments from prior passes, or flip quality bits so ground pipelines silently discard or misclassify products. Recorder index manipulation can orphan files or cause downlinks to serve stale or fabricated content. Because many missions perform some processing or filtering onboard, tampering upstream of downlink propagates forward as “authoritative” truth, jeopardizing mission objectives without obvious protocol anomalies. | |
| EX-0012.07 | Propulsion Subsystem | Propulsion relies on parameters and sensed values that govern burns, pressure management, and safing. Editable items include thruster calibration and minimum impulse bit, valve timing and duty limits, inhibit masks, delta-V tables, plume keep-out constraints, tank pressure/temperature thresholds, leak-detection limits, and momentum-management coupling with attitude control. By modifying these, an adversary can provoke over-correction, waste propellant through repeated trims, bias orbit maintenance, or trigger protective sequences at inopportune times. False pressure or temperature readings can cause autonomous venting or lockouts; tweaked alignment matrices or misapplied gimbal limits can yield off-axis thrust and attitude excursions; altered desaturation rules can induce frequent wheel unloads that sap resources. Because consumables are finite and margins tight, even modest parameter drift can shorten mission life or violate keep-out and conjunction constraints while presenting as “normal” control activity. | |
| EX-0012.08 | Attitude Determination & Control Subsystem | ADCS depends on tightly coupled models and parameters: star-tracker catalogs and masks, sensor alignments and bias terms, gyro scale factors and drift rates, estimator covariances and process/measurement noise, controller gains and saturation limits, wheel/CMG torque constants, magnetic torquer maps, and sun sensor thresholds. Editing these values skews estimation or control, producing slow bias, limit cycles, loss of lock, or abrupt safing triggers. For example, a small change to a star-tracker mask can force frequent dropouts; an inflated gyro bias drives the filter away from truth; softened actuator limits or mis-set gains let disturbances accumulate; altered sun-point entry criteria cause unnecessary mode switches. Secondary impacts propagate to power, thermal, and communications because pointing and geometry underpin array generation, radiator view factors, and antenna gain. The technique turns the spacecraft against itself by nudging the parameters that close the loop between what the vehicle believes and how it responds. | |
| EX-0012.09 | Electrical Power Subsystem | Adversaries alter parameters and sensed values that govern power generation, storage, and distribution so the spacecraft draws or allocates energy in harmful ways. Editable items include bus voltage/current limits, MPPT setpoints and sweep behavior, array and SADA modes, battery charge/discharge thresholds and temperature derates, state-of-charge estimation constants, latching current limiter (LCL) trip/retry settings, load-shed priorities, heater duty limits, and survival/keep-alive rules. By changing these, a threat actor can drive excess consumption (e.g., disabling load shed, raising heater floors), misreport remaining energy (skewed SoC), or push batteries outside healthy ranges, producing brownouts, repeated safing, or premature capacity loss. Manipulating thresholds and hysteresis can also create oscillations where loads repeatedly drop and re-engage, wasting energy and stressing components. The effect is accelerated depletion or misallocation of finite power, degrading mission operations and potentially preventing recovery after eclipse or anomalies. | |
| EX-0012.10 | Command & Data Handling Subsystem | C&DH relies on tables and runtime values that define how commands are parsed, queued, and dispatched and how telemetry is collected, stored, and forwarded. Targets include opcode-to-handler maps, argument limits and schemas, queue depths and priorities, message ID routing, publish/subscribe bindings, timeline/schedule entries, file catalog indices, compression and packetization settings, and event/telemetry filters. Edits to these artifacts reshape control and visibility: commands are delayed, dropped, or misrouted; telemetry is suppressed or redirected; timelines slip; and housekeeping/data products are repackaged in ways that confuse ground processing. Because many frameworks treat these values as authoritative configuration, small changes can silently propagate across subsystems, degrading responsiveness, creating backlogs, or severing the logical pathways that keep the vehicle coordinated, without modifying the underlying code. | |
| EX-0012.11 | Watchdog Timer (WDT) | Watchdogs supervise liveness by requiring software to “pet” within defined windows or the system resets. Threat actors manipulate WDT behavior by changing timeout durations, windowed-WDT bounds, reset actions, enable/mask bits, or the source that performs the petting (e.g., moving it into a low-level ISR so higher layers can be stalled indefinitely). Software WDTs can be disabled or starved; hardware WDTs are influenced via control registers, strap pins, or supervisor commands that alter prescalers and reset ladders. Outcomes include preventing intended resets so runaway tasks consume power and bandwidth, or forcing repeated resets at tactically chosen moments, e.g., during updates or handovers, to keep the system in a degraded or easily predictable state. The technique converts a safety mechanism into a tool for either unbounded execution or rhythmic disruption, depending on how the WDT parameters are rewritten. | |
| EX-0012.12 | System Clock | Spacecraft maintain multiple time bases and distribute time to schedule sequences, validate timetags, manage anti-replay counters, and align navigation/attitude processing. By writing to clock registers, altering time-distribution services, switching disciplining sources, or biasing oscillator parameters, an adversary can skew these references. Effects include reordering or prematurely firing stored command sequences, invalidating timetag checks, desynchronizing counters used by authentication or ranging, misaligning estimator windows, and corrupting timestamped payload data. Even small offsets can accumulate into observable misbehavior when autonomy and scheduling depend on tight temporal guarantees. The result is execution that happens at the wrong moment, or not at all, because the system’s notion of “now” has been shifted. | |
| EX-0012.13 | Poison AI/ML Training Data | When missions employ AI/ML, for onboard detection/classification, compression, anomaly screening, guidance aids, or ground-side planning, training data becomes a control surface. Data poisoning inserts crafted examples or labels into the training corpus or fine-tuning set so the resulting model behaves incorrectly while appearing valid. Variants include clean-label backdoors (benign-looking samples with a hidden trigger that later induces a targeted response), label flipping and biased sampling (to skew decision boundaries), and corruption of calibration/ground-truth products that the pipeline trusts. For space systems, poisoning may occur in science archives, test vectors, simulated scenes, or housekeeping datasets used to train autonomy/anomaly models; models trained on poisoned corpora are then packaged and uplinked as routine updates. Once fielded, a simple trigger pattern in imagery, telemetry, or RF features can cause misclassification, suppression, or false positives at the time and place the adversary chooses, turning model behavior into an execution mechanism keyed by data rather than code. | |
| PER-0003 | Ground System Presence | The adversary maintains long-lived access by residing within mission ground infrastructure that already has end-to-end reach to the spacecraft. Persistence can exist in operator workstations and mission control software, schedulers/orchestrators, station control (antenna/mount, modem/baseband), automation scripts and procedure libraries, identity and ticketing systems, and cloud-hosted mission services. With this foothold, the actor can repeatedly queue commands, updates, or file transfers during routine passes; mirror legitimate operator behavior to blend in; and refresh their tooling as software is upgraded. Presence on the ground also supports durable reconnaissance (pass plans, dictionaries, key/counter states) and continuous staging so each window to the vehicle can be exploited without re-establishing access. | |
| PER-0005 | Credentialed Persistence | Threat actors may acquire or leverage valid credentials to maintain persistent access to a spacecraft or its supporting command and control (C2) systems. These credentials may include system service accounts, user accounts, maintenance access credentials, cryptographic keys, or other authentication mechanisms that enable continued entry without triggering access alarms. By operating with legitimate credentials, adversaries can sustain access over extended periods, evade detection, and facilitate follow-on tactics such as command execution, data exfiltration, or lateral movement. Credentialed persistence is particularly effective in environments lacking strong credential lifecycle management, segmentation, or monitoring allowing threat actors to exploit trusted pathways while remaining embedded in mission operations. | |
| DE-0002 | Disrupt or Deceive Downlink | Threat actors may target ground-side telemetry reception, processing, or display to disrupt the operator’s visibility into spacecraft health and activity. This may involve denial-based attacks that prevent the spacecraft from transmitting telemetry to the ground (e.g., disabling telemetry links or crashing telemetry software), or more subtle deception-based attacks that manipulate telemetry content to conceal unauthorized actions. Since telemetry is the primary method ground controllers rely on to monitor spacecraft status, any disruption or manipulation can delay or prevent detection of malicious activity, suppress automated or manual mitigations, or degrade trust in telemetry-based decision support systems. | |
| DE-0002.01 | Inhibit Ground System Functionality | Threat actors may utilize access to the ground system to inhibit its ability to accurately process, render, or interpret spacecraft telemetry, effectively leaving ground controllers unaware of the spacecraft’s true state or activity. This may involve traditional denial-based techniques, such as disabling telemetry software, corrupting processing pipelines, or crashing display interfaces. In addition, more subtle deception-based techniques may be used to falsify telemetry data within the ground system , such as modifying command counters, acknowledgments, housekeeping data, or sensor outputs , to provide the appearance of nominal operation. These actions can suppress alerts, mask unauthorized activity, or prevent both automated and manual mitigations from being initiated based on misleading ground-side information. Because telemetry is the primary method by which ground controllers monitor the health, behavior, and safety of the spacecraft, any disruption or falsification of this data directly undermines situational awareness and operational control. | |
| DE-0004 | Masquerading | The adversary presents themselves as an authorized origin so activity appears legitimate across RF, protocol, and organizational boundaries. Techniques include crafting telecommand frames with correct headers, counters, and dictionaries; imitating station “fingerprints” such as Doppler, polarization, timing, and framing; replaying or emulating crosslink identities; and using insider-derived credentials or roles to operate mission tooling. Masquerading can also target metadata, virtual channel IDs, APIDs, source sequence counts, and facility identifiers, so logs and telemetry attribute actions to expected entities. The effect is that commands, file transfers, or configuration changes are processed as if they came from approved sources, reducing scrutiny and delaying detection. | |
| DE-0009 | Camouflage, Concealment, and Decoys (CCD) | The adversary exploits the physical and operational environment to reduce detectability or to mislead observers. Tactics include signature management (minimizing RF/optical/thermal/RCS), controlled emissions timing, deliberate power-down/dormancy, geometry choices that hide within clutter or eclipse, and the deployment of decoys that generate convincing tracks. CCD can also leverage naturally noisy conditions, debris-rich regions, auroral radio noise, solar storms, to mask proximity operations or to provide plausible alternate explanations for anomalies. The unifying theme is environmental manipulation: shape what external sensors perceive so surveillance and attribution lag, misclassify, or look elsewhere. | |
| DE-0009.05 | Corruption or Overload of Ground-Based SDA Systems | The adversary targets terrestrial space-domain awareness pipelines, sensor networks, tracking centers, catalogs, and their data flows, to blind or confuse broad-area monitoring. Paths include compromising or spoofing observational feeds (radar/optical returns, TLE updates, ephemeris exchanges), injecting falsified or time-shifted tracks, tampering with fusion/association parameters, and saturating ingestion and alerting with noisy or adversarial inputs. Where SDA employs AI/ML for detection and correlation, the attacker can degrade models by flooding them with ambiguous scenes or crafted features that increase false positives/negatives and consume analyst cycles. Unlike onboard deception, this approach skews the external decision-support picture across many assets at once, delaying detection of real maneuvers and providing cover for concurrent operations. | |
| DE-0011 | Credentialed Evasion | Threat actors may leverage valid credentials to conduct unauthorized actions against a spacecraft or related system in a way that conceals their presence and evades detection. By using trusted authentication mechanisms attackers can blend in with legitimate operations and avoid triggering access control alarms or anomaly detection systems. This technique enables evasion by appearing authorized, allowing adversaries to issue commands, access sensitive subsystems, or move laterally within spacecraft or constellation architectures without exploiting software vulnerabilities. When credential use is poorly segmented or monitored, this form of access can be used to maintain stealthy persistence or facilitate other tactics under the guise of legitimate activity. | |
| LM-0001 | Hosted Payload | The adversary pivots through the host–payload boundary to reach additional subsystems. Hosted payloads exchange power, time, housekeeping, and data with the bus via defined gateways (e.g., SpaceWire, 1553, Ethernet) and often support file services, table loads, and command dictionaries distinct from the host’s. A foothold on the payload can be used to inject traffic through the gateway processor, request privileged services (time/ephemeris distribution, firmware loads), or ride shared backplanes where payload traffic is bridged into C&DH networks. In some designs, payload processes execute on host compute or expose maintenance modes that temporarily widen access, creating paths from the payload into attitude, power, storage, or recorder resources. The movement is transitive: compromise a co-resident unit, then traverse the trusted interface that already exists for mission operations. | |
| LM-0002 | Exploit Lack of Bus Segregation | On flat architectures, where remote terminals, subsystems, and payloads share a common bus with minimal partitioning, any node that can transmit may influence many others. An attacker leverages this by forging message IDs or terminal addresses, replaying actuator/sensor frames, seizing or imitating bus-controller roles, or abusing gateway bridges that forward traffic between links (e.g., 1553↔SpaceWire/CAN). Because consumers often act on the latest valid-looking message, crafted traffic from one compromised device can reconfigure peers, toggle power domains, or write persistent parameters. Weak role enforcement and broadcast semantics allow privilege escalation from a peripheral to effective system-wide influence, turning the shared medium into a highway for further compromise. | |
| LM-0004 | Visiting Vehicle Interface(s) | Docking, berthing, or short-duration attach events create high-trust, high-bandwidth connections between vehicles. During these operations, automatic sequences verify latches, exchange status, synchronize time, and enable umbilicals that carry data and power; maintenance tools may also push firmware or tables across the interface. An attacker positioned on the visiting vehicle can exploit these handshakes and service channels to inject commands, transfer files, or access bus gateways on the host. Because many actions are expected “just after dock,” malicious traffic can ride the same procedures that commission the interface, allowing lateral movement from the visiting craft into the target spacecraft’s C&DH, payload, or support subsystems. | |
| LM-0005 | Virtualization Escape | The adversary pivots across partitions by abusing the mechanisms a separation kernel or hypervisor exposes for inter-partition communication and device sharing. Paths include message ports/queues, shared-memory windows, virtual NICs and bridges, hypercalls, and common driver backends (e.g., storage or DMA engines without strict IOMMU bounds). A foothold in a less-trusted partition, often a payload or guest OS, can be turned into access to a higher-privilege domain by crafting traffic that exploits parser flaws in port services, racing management channels, or coercing backend drivers to perform out-of-bounds operations. Once the boundary is crossed, the actor can reach bus gateways, file systems, or control applications hosted in adjacent partitions and continue movement under the guise of permitted inter-partition exchanges. | |
| LM-0006 | Launch Vehicle Interface | During integration and ascent, payloads and the launch vehicle exchange power, discrete lines, and data via umbilicals, separation avionics, and shared EGSE networks. Protections can be reduced or heterogeneous because timelines are tight and responsibilities cross organizations. An attacker positioned on either side (vehicle or payload) can use these commissioning links, health/status queries, time distribution, inhibit lines, separation commands, or telemetry gateways, to inject messages, transfer files, or alter configuration that propagates across the interface. Before fairing close and prior to separation, this brief but high-trust coupling provides a route to move from one platform to the other and to seed artifacts that persist after deployment. | |
| LM-0006.01 | Rideshare Payload | In shared launches, multiple independent payloads cohabit common infrastructure until separation. If isolation is incomplete (e.g., shared data buses, mispartitioned deployer controllers, common logging/telemetry collectors, or cross-connected laptops and recorders), a compromise in one payload’s domain can be leveraged to observe or influence another’s traffic before release. Threat actors exploit these transient but real connections to read configuration, pivot through deployer control paths, or stage data/commands that execute as neighboring payloads power and check out, enabling cross-payload access or tampering prior to independent flight. | |
| LM-0007 | Credentialed Traversal | Movement is achieved by reusing legitimate credentials and keys to cross boundaries that rely on trust rather than strict isolation. Using operator or service accounts, maintenance logins, station certificates, or spacecraft-recognized crypto, the adversary invokes gateways that bridge domains, C&DH to payload, crosslink routers to onboard networks, or constellation management planes to individual vehicles. Because the traversal occurs through approved interfaces (file services, table loaders, remote procedure calls, crosslink tasking), actions appear as routine operations while reaching progressively more privileged subsystems or neighboring spacecraft. Where roles and scopes are broad or reused, the same credential opens multiple enclaves, turning authorization itself into the lateral path. | |
| EXF-0006 | Modify Communications Configuration | The adversary alters radio/optical link configuration so the spacecraft emits mission data over paths the program does not monitor or control. Levers include retuning carriers, adding sidebands or subcarriers, changing modulation/coding profiles, remapping virtual channels/APIDs, editing beacon content, or redirecting routing tables in regenerative payloads. Data can be embedded steganographically (idle fields, padding, frame counters, pilot tones) or carried on a covert auxiliary downlink/crosslink pointed at attacker-owned apertures. Because these emissions conform to plausible waveforms and scheduler behavior, they appear as ordinary link activity while quietly conveying payload products, housekeeping, or file fragments to non-mission receivers. | |
| EXF-0006.01 | Software Defined Radio | Programmable SDRs let an attacker introduce new waveforms or piggyback payloads into existing ones. By modifying DSP chains (filters, mixers, FEC, framing), the actor can: add a low-rate subcarrier under the main modulation, alter preamble/pilot sequences to encode bits, vary puncturing/interleaver patterns as a covert channel, or schedule brief “maintenance” bursts that actually carry exfiltrated data. Changes may be packaged as legitimate updates or configuration profiles so the SDR transmits toward attacker-visible geometry using standard equipment, while mission tooling interprets the emission as routine. | |
| EXF-0006.02 | Transponder | On bent-pipe or regenerative transponders, configuration controls what is translated, amplified, and routed. An adversary can remap input–output paths, shift translation frequencies, adjust polarization or gain to favor non-mission receivers, or enable auxiliary ports so selected virtual channels or recorder playbacks are forwarded outside the planned ground segment. In regenerative systems, edited routing tables or QoS rules can mirror traffic to an attacker-controlled endpoint. The result is a sanctioned-looking carrier that quietly delivers mission data to unauthorized listeners. | |
| EXF-0007 | Compromised Ground System | The adversary resides in mission ground infrastructure and uses its trusted position to siphon data at scale. With access to operator workstations, mission control servers, baseband/modem chains, telemetry processing pipelines, or archive databases, the attacker can mirror real-time streams, scrape recorder playbacks, export payload products, and harvest procedure logs and command histories. Because exfiltration rides normal paths, file staging areas, data distribution services, cloud relays, or cross-site links, it blends with routine dissemination. Compromise of scheduling tools and pass plans also lets the actor time captures to high-value downlinks and automate bulk extraction without touching the spacecraft. | |
| EXF-0008 | Compromised Developer Site | By breaching development or integration environments (at the mission owner, contractor, or partner), the adversary gains access to source code, test vectors, telemetry captures, build artifacts, documentation, and configuration data, material that is often more complete than flight archives. Beyond theft of intellectual property, the attacker can embed telemetry taps, extended logging, or data “export” features into test harnesses, simulators, or flight builds so that, once fielded, the system produces extra observables or forwards content to non-mission endpoints. This activity typically occurs pre-launch during software production and ATLO, positioning exfiltration mechanisms to activate later in flight. | |
| EXF-0009 | Compromised Partner Site | The adversary leverages third-party infrastructure connected to the mission, commercial ground stations, relay networks, operations service providers, data processing partners, to capture or relay mission data outside official channels. From these footholds, the attacker can mirror TT&C and payload feeds, scrape shared repositories, and man-in-the-middle cross-organization links (e.g., between partner stations and the primary MOC). Because partner environments vary in segmentation and monitoring, exfiltration can affect multiple missions or operators simultaneously, with stolen data exiting through the partner’s routine distribution mechanisms. | |
| EXF-0010 | Payload Communication Channel | Many payloads maintain communications separate from the primary TT&C, direct downlinks to user terminals, customer networks, or experimenter VPNs. An adversary who implants code in the payload (or controls its gateway) can route host-bus data into these channels, embed content within payload products (e.g., steganographic fields in imagery/telemetry), or schedule covert file transfers alongside legitimate deliveries. Because these paths are expected to carry high-rate mission data and may bypass TT&C monitoring, they provide a discreet conduit to exfiltrate payload or broader spacecraft information without altering the primary command link’s profile. | |