The adversary forges inputs that subsystems treat as trustworthy truth, time tags, sensor measurements, bus messages, or navigation signals, so onboard logic acts on fabricated reality. Because many control loops and autonomy rules assume data authenticity once it passes basic sanity checks, carefully shaped spoofs can trigger mode transitions, safing, actuator commands, or payload behaviors without touching flight code. Spoofing may occur over RF (e.g., GNSS, crosslinks, TT&C beacons), over internal networks/buses (message injection with valid identifiers), or at sensor/actuator interfaces (electrical/optical stimulation that produces plausible readings). Effects range from subtle bias (drifting estimates, skewed calibrations) to acute events (unexpected slews, power reconfiguration, recorder re-indexing), and can also pollute downlinked telemetry or science products so ground controllers interpret a false narrative. The hallmark is that the spacecraft chooses the adversary’s action path because the forged data passes through normal processing chains.
| ID | Name | Tiering | Description | NIST Rev5 | ISO 27001 | Onboard SV | Ground | |
| CM0031 | Authentication | All command-bearing sessions, frames, or messages involving spacecraft command links, crosslinks, or relay services shall provide cryptographic authentication of the command origin and integrity verification before commands are accepted. Mutual or bidirectional authentication shall be required where both endpoints must authenticate one another and the link and protocol architecture support that exchange. Acquisition requirements should mandate cryptographically based, bidirectional authentication for all command sessions across external links, including ground-to-spacecraft uplinks, spacecraft-to-spacecraft crosslinks, and any relay or intermediary ground station connections, with authentication required aBidirectional authentication enables both communicating entities to verify each other’s identity and helps prevent impersonation. Authentication establishes identity but does not by itself authorize a command, protect mission-data confidentiality, or prevent session hijacking. Command acceptance must also enforce authorization, and authenticated sessions or security associations must maintain integrity and replay resistance so that subsequent traffic remains bound to the authenticated entities. Beyond external links, authentication is strongly recommended for spacecraft internal bus communications and onboard inter-component connections, as an adversary with access to internal interfaces, whether through a compromised component or a physical access event, should face the same authentication barrier as an external adversary attempting to inject commands from outside the spacecraft. | AC-14 AC-17 AC-17(10) AC-17(2) AC-18 AC-18(1) IA-2 IA-3(1) IA-4 IA-4(9) IA-7 IA-9 PL-8 PL-8(1) SA-3 SA-4(5) SA-8 SA-8(15) SA-8(9) SC-16 SC-16(1) SC-16(2) SC-32(1) SC-7(11) SC-8(1) SI-14(3) SI-7(6) | A.5.14 A.6.7 A.8.1 A.5.14 A.8.1 A.8.20 A.5.16 A.5.16 A.5.8 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.33 | ||||
| CM0050 | On-board Message Encryption | Authentication controls on the spacecraft internal bus verify the identity of communicating components but do not protect the confidentiality of the data in transit; an adversary with access to the bus, whether through a compromised component, a hardware implant, or a physical access event, can observe all unencrypted inter-component communications regardless of whether authentication is enforced. Encrypting data traversing the spacecraft internal bus protects the confidentiality of selected message content from entities that can observe the bus but do not possess authorization and the applicable cryptographic keys. The protection does not prevent disclosure to a compromised component that legitimately possesses the decryption key, and it may not conceal unencrypted protocol headers, addressing information, message timing, or traffic volume. Bus encryption should be considered for bus segments or message types carrying information whose unauthorized disclosure would create unacceptable mission, security, privacy, or operational risk. Criticality alone does not establish a confidentiality requirement. Where confidentiality is required, encryption must be combined with message integrity, source authentication, and replay protection through an approved authenticated-encryption mechanism or an appropriately composed set of cryptographic protections. | AC-4 AC-4(23) AC-4(24) AC-4(26) AC-4(31) AC-4(32) PL-8 PL-8(1) SA-3 SA-8 SA-8(18) SA-8(19) SA-8(9) SA-9(6) SC-13 SC-16 SC-16(1) SC-16(2) SC-16(3) SC-8(1) SC-8(3) SI-19(4) SI-4(10) SI-4(25) | A.5.14 A.8.22 A.8.23 A.8.11 A.5.8 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.33 A.8.24 A.8.26 A.5.31 A.8.11 | ||||
| CM0032 | On-board Intrusion Detection & Prevention | An on-board intrusion detection and prevention system (IDS/IPS) monitors mission-critical spacecraft components and systems, generates and stores audit records, and supports mission-approved responses to detected threats. Depending on the mission architecture, threat, and availability of ground support, responses may be autonomous, ground-directed, or a combination of both. The system should address both known attack patterns and previously unseen anomalous behavior through complementary signature-based and behavior- or anomaly-based detection methods. Machine learning or adaptive technologies may be used when their performance, resource consumption, and failure behavior have been validated for the mission environment. Detection and response coverage should address applicable adversary activities across the attack lifecycle, including initial access, execution, persistence, defense evasion, and exfiltration. The on-board IDS/IPS must be integrated with the spacecraft's traditional fault management system to provide a unified approach to anomaly response, ensuring that cyber-triggered responses are compatible with fault management logic and do not produce unintended effects or fratricide against the spacecraft's own systems; countermeasures that are incompatible with fault management are considered unsafe and must not be executed autonomously. The response hierarchy must prioritize vehicle safety and continued mission operations. Advanced containment or deception responses may be considered when they can be executed without unacceptable mission risk. The system should preserve evidence that supports post-event analysis, threat characterization, and potential attribution by authorized ground support. | AU-14 AU-2 AU-3 AU-3(1) AU-4 AU-4(1) AU-5 AU-5(2) AU-5(5) AU-6(1) AU-6(4) AU-8 AU-9 AU-9(2) AU-9(3) CA-7(6) CM-11(3) CP-10 CP-10(4) IR-4 IR-4(11) IR-4(12) IR-4(14) IR-4(5) IR-5 IR-5(1) PL-8 PL-8(1) RA-10 RA-3(4) SA-8(21) SA-8(22) SA-8(23) SC-16(2) SC-32(1) SC-5 SC-5(3) SC-7(10) SC-7(9) SI-10(6) SI-16 SI-17 SI-3 SI-3(10) SI-3(8) SI-4 SI-4(1) SI-4(10) SI-4(11) SI-4(13) SI-4(16) SI-4(17) SI-4(2) SI-4(23) SI-4(24) SI-4(25) SI-4(4) SI-4(5) SI-4(7) SI-6 SI-7(17) SI-7(8) | A.8.15 A.8.15 A.8.6 A.8.17 A.5.33 A.8.15 A.8.15 A.5.29 A.5.25 A.5.26 A.5.27 A.5.8 A.5.7 A.8.12 A.8.7 A.8.16 A.8.16 A.8.16 A.8.16 | ||||
| CM0042 | Robust Fault Management | The fault management system is a high-privilege, autonomous spacecraft function that adversaries may attempt to exploit as an attack vector, triggering protective responses that place the spacecraft in a degraded or more vulnerable operational state. Attack scenarios include manipulating sensor, state, or telemetry information to induce onboard or ground-directed safing actions; creating false fault conditions through sensor spoofing or proximity operations; exploiting safe-mode configurations that reduce security protections; and inducing autonomous maneuver responses through crafted fault indications. Robust fault management requires that safing procedures and autonomous responses be designed with explicit security analysis confirming that each protective action does not introduce a more exploitable system state than the fault condition it responds to. The integrity and authenticity of sensor data, state information, commands, and telemetry used by onboard or ground-based fault management functions must be protected to prevent falsified inputs from triggering unintended responses. Every fault response, including mode transitions, actuator commands, and communication reconfigurations, must be evaluated against the question of whether an adversary could deliberately induce that response and whether the resulting system state provides the adversary with meaningful advantage. | CP-2 CP-4(5) IR-3 IR-3(1) IR-3(2) PE-10 PE-11 PE-11(1) PE-14 PL-8 PL-8(1) SA-3 SA-4(5) SA-8 SA-8(13) SA-8(24) SA-8(26) SA-8(3) SA-8(30) SA-8(4) SC-16(2) SC-24 SC-5 SI-13 SI-13(4) SI-17 SI-4(13) SI-4(7) SI-7(5) | 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.2 A.5.29 A.8.1 A.7.11 A.7.11 A.7.5 A.7.8 A.7.11 A.5.8 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.8.16 | ||||
| CM0044 | Cyber-safe Mode | Cyber-safe mode is a dedicated, configuration-controlled spacecraft operating state entered autonomously or by authorized ground command when mission-defined conditions indicate a credible threat to platform integrity. In this state, nonessential functions are shut down or isolated and the spacecraft operates from an integrity-protected, validated software and configuration baseline. Unlike traditional safe mode, which addresses hardware faults and operational anomalies, cyber-safe mode is specifically designed to respond to cyber threats, providing a secure recovery baseline from which the spacecraft can reconstitute compromised functions. Authentication and encryption must remain enabled within cyber-safe mode, ensuring that the reduced operational state does not degrade the security posture of the vehicle. The cyber-safe mode software and configuration must be stored onboard using hardware-based protections that prevent modification by nominal flight software, ordinary commands, and other untrusted execution paths. Where baseline updates are permitted, they must use a separately authorized and integrity-verified maintenance process that preserves a recoverable trusted version. Following entry into cyber-safe mode, the spacecraft must be capable of reconstituting firmware and software functions to pre-attack capability levels, either autonomously through self-healing mechanisms or with ground assistance, and must be capable of replanning operations based on whatever equipment remains available after the cyber event. The primary recovery objective is restoration of full mission capability; where that is not achievable, the spacecraft should attain the maximum reduced mission capability available given the post-attack system state. | CP-10 CP-10(4) CP-12 CP-2 CP-2(5) IR-3 IR-3(1) IR-3(2) IR-4 IR-4(12) IR-4(3) PE-10 PE10 PL-8 PL-8(1) SA-3 SA-8 SA-8(10) SA-8(12) SA-8(13) SA-8(19) SA-8(21) SA-8(23) SA-8(24) SA-8(26) SA-8(3) SA-8(4) SC-16(2) SC-24 SC-5 SI-11 SI-17 SI-4(7) SI-7(17) SI-7(5) | 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.2 A.5.29 A.8.1 A.5.29 A.5.25 A.5.26 A.5.27 A.7.11 A.5.8 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 | ||||
| CM0048 | Resilient Position, Navigation, and Timing | Where compatible authentication services are available, GNSS receivers used for spacecraft position, navigation, and timing (PNT) must authenticate the navigation information and its asserted GNSS system source before treating that information as trusted. Navigation-message authentication must not be treated as complete protection against spoofing because it may not authenticate the ranging signal or prevent all replay, meaconing, or signal-manipulation scenarios. Authenticated GNSS information should therefore be combined with PNT integrity monitoring and alternate navigation or timing sources appropriate to mission risk. The spacecraft must maintain a fault-tolerant authoritative time architecture capable of maintaining time within mission-defined accuracy and uncertainty limits when the primary source is degraded, rejected, or unavailable. The architecture should support the time-dependent cryptographic controls, command sequencing, telemetry correlation, fault-management logic, and other functions that rely on synchronized time. Each onboard processor must synchronize its internal clock to the authoritative time source whenever the measured time difference exceeds a threshold defined in the flight software (FSW), preventing clock drift from accumulating to levels that corrupt time-dependent functions. Where SpaceWire is used to distribute time, the spacecraft must implement the mission-defined synchronization protocol and achieve the accuracy required by the functions that consume that time. An accuracy of approximately one microsecond should be applied where required by the mission architecture and verified for the applicable SpaceWire nodes and operational configurations. | CP-2 PE-20 PL-8 PL-8(1) SA-9 SC-16(2) SC-45 SC-45(1) SC-45(2) | 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.2 A.5.29 A.8.1 A.5.10 A.5.8 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 | ||||
| CM0029 | TRANSEC | Transmission security (TRANSEC) is the component of communications security (COMSEC) concerned with protecting the characteristics of the transmission itself, as distinct from protecting the content of the information being communicated. TRANSEC controls reduce the likelihood, effectiveness, or operational impact of transmission interception, signal disruption, communications deception, and exploitation of transmission characteristics within the defined threat model. Applicable TRANSEC techniques include jam-resistant waveforms that increase resistance to jamming and communications deception, spread spectrum and frequency hopping techniques that reduce signal predictability and improve resistance to interception and disruption, low probability of intercept and low probability of detection (LPI/LPD) signal designs that reduce transmission observability, and transmission scheduling or pattern discipline that limits the intelligence value of traffic analysis. TRANSEC requirements should be applied to mission communication links according to link criticality (e.g., TT&C, crosslinks), threat exposure, and operational consequence. TRANSEC must be treated as a distinct layer of protection complementary to, but not a substitute for, cryptographic protection of information content. | AC-17 AC-18 AC-18(5) CA-3 CP-8 PL-8 PL-8(1) SA-8(19) SC-16 SC-16(1) SC-40 SC-40(1) SC-40(3) SC-40(4) SC-5 SC-8(1) SC-8(3) SC-8(4) | A.5.14 A.6.7 A.8.1 A.5.14 A.8.1 A.8.20 A.5.14 A.8.21 A.5.29 A.7.11 A.5.8 A.5.33 | ||||