analysing drones/uavs - forensics

[uav_tester]

Hi all,

First post, thought I would come here given how active it looks. I am currently invovled in forensic analysis of UAVs and it probably is covered in the news, these devices can prove troublesome when in the wrong hands. Just wanted to ask a few questions about the technology involved in these devices as you guys will have a lot more knowledge than me.

here goes:-

1. Is there any programmable/ downloadable / ';open source'; software available that you can programme locally, then upload to your drone. Or software that you can programme routes etc and then just ';sync'; the route? This is probably a novice questions - apologies? I am curious as to how customisable software is on these. ANy software names I could go and look at would be appreciated.

2. in terms of traceability, what tech/software functionality allows a lost drone to be tied back to its owner?

3. What are the new developements in terms of software? I had a basic parrot drone, and flew it using my phone with the AR.freeflight2.4 app. I take it there is now more adavanced content available?

I appreciate any comments

Thanks

[Cheredanine]

Hi,
So might help if we knew a little more, I am more than familiar with GPG13 and 18 so have a good background in this area

But firstly, UAV covers a gamut of different vehicles for different purposes, the common factor is they are trying to fly, weight is a big killer, they all have nothing that they do t absolutely need.

In answer to q1, most flight control software will do this, or has a fork that does it, for example I-nav fork for cleanflight.
BUT there are many different flight controllers the use different software, hence there is nothing like a standard piece of software that is ubiquitous
What';s more, this type of functionality requires hardware (GPS sensor, GPS antenna, baro, compass, possibly sonar) that is simply not present on most UAV, particularly things like 250 class which are really taking off (partson the pun) and flying wings, putting all that hardware on them simply kills the flight profile

The answer to q2 is why? Some software allows you to put in a name, if it has fpv some cams and most osd cards will allow you to put a pilot name in. Anyone wanting to avoid this would simply not bother putting it in. If they were forced to they would presumably put a false name in
Transponder systems would be a better option, they are used in miniquad racing to count the laps for individual drones,

Q3 well parrot isn';t really advanced
For advanced software that isn';t propriary
Look up:
Cleanflight and its forks (betaflight, raceflight and I-nav)
Dronin
Openpilot


There is a misunderstanding from those outside the hobby:
COTS UAVs tend to be mass produced and engineered to the level they work
Many people in here and most hobbyists build there own,  this means whilst their engineering skills such as soldering may not be the best, it isn';t spewed out by some factory, far more care is taken over these things, they tend to be more reliable. With regards to software this means mostly open source, it is not simple and it is developed beyond what is required as technical exercises because the programmers find it interesting rather than there is a commercial need and a budget.

I had a conversation with a pilot recently who has a phantom4 and has qualified to do commercial work, despite all the training, he had no understanding of how his drone works, he could point at the escs but had no idea what the differences between PWM, oneshot125, oneshot42, multishot or dshot were or indeed what those protocols were, and the vulnerabilities and advantages of each protocol and what a PID controls system was, how it worked, the impact of changing loop times or pids, and the nock on effect of the esc protocols, in shot he was completely unaware of how his UAV worked, he was entirely dependant on so,e Chinese company';s product both in terms of hardware and software all of which is proprietary and presumably done on an "as cheap as possible" basis

[Revs]

Hi and welcome

1. Is there any programmable/ downloadable / ';open source'; software available that you can programme locally, then upload to your drone. Or software that you can programme routes etc and then just ';sync'; the route? This is probably a novice questions - apologies? I am curious as to how customisable software is on these. ANy software names I could go and look at would be appreciated.

What you';re refering to here is called waypoint navigation, where you pre-program a route, press go and the craft flies it. Many flight controllers are capable of this, but the most popular two are from 3D Robitics (hardware is APM and Pixhawk) and DJI (who I';m sure you';ve heard of). 3DR software is opensource, DJI is not.

2. in terms of traceability, what tech/software functionality allows a lost drone to be tied back to its owner?

Very little. Generally, if a pilot chooses to do this, it';s in the form of a physical label or tag fixed externally to the craft. Though there is currently no laws requiring this in the UK... for now.

3. What are the new developements in terms of software? I had a basic parrot drone, and flew it using my phone with the AR.freeflight2.4 app. I take it there is now more adavanced content available?

The most advanced developments are being made by DJI, with optical, IR and ultrasonic positioning systems on top of the usual GPS/GLONAS/compass/barometer/gyro/IMU sensors (see the new DJI Phamtom 4 Pro). But as said, this is not open-source.

Most of the open-source software development is done at sites like GitHub with people all over the world contributing.

[nate80]

Hi uav_tester. Welcome to the forum.

Can you tell us who it is you';re conducting forensic analysis for, and for what purpose?  This useful info will help forum members to answer your questions more accurately.

[uav_tester]

wow, thanks both for the prompt reply. To contextualise it a little more, typically my interest/ research/work covers instances where a breach of law has taken place and working out what has happened. in some instances, a UAV may have been found detatched from the user and therefore idenitfying the owner for law enforcement.

I did some intial work with parrot - becuase it was off the shelf and a generalised device. However now with the market more prominant, i guess there is a greater range of more complex devices.

I want to expand the research beyond parrot and want to look at the problem areas which exist across each of the 3 questions I originally asked. I guess, for some (obv there are those who have been involved in uavs for a long time), uavs are an emerging device, and for law enforcement, potentially an emerging head-ache. I am trying to look into the issues in more detail.

Traceability is the main problem faced and without it, there is no culpability for bad flying. And by bad, i mean the like of flying into the path of planes, the serious stuff. I guess there wsa the dorne register proposed a while ago, what are your views on traceability? how could it be implemented or would you not want it?

Cheredanine & Revs:----- i have tried to collate the repsonses for ease.

-I want to try and survey and analyse the flight packages/software available, would you say look at :- 3d robotics, 3DR, Cleanflight and its forks (betaflight, raceflight and I-nav), Dronin and Openpilot? woud this cover a lot of the market?

The parrot was basic, fly it round and thats it really, the device itself was basic from a componemnt point of view. I want to get more heavily involved in the more advanceed content.

"DJI, with optical, IR and ultrasonic positioning systems on top of the usual GPS/GLONAS/compass/barometer/gyro/IMU sensors (see the new DJI Phamtom 4 Pro)"

-is it worth buying such a device as a test device?

There is a misunderstanding from those outside the hobby:
COTS UAVs tend to be mass produced and engineered to the level they work
Many people in here and most hobbyists build there own,  this means whilst their engineering skills such as soldering may not be the best, it isn';t spewed out by some factory, far more care is taken over these things, they tend to be more reliable. With regards to software this means mostly open source, it is not simple and it is developed beyond what is required as technical exercises because the programmers find it interesting rather than there is a commercial need and a budget.

I had a conversation with a pilot recently who has a phantom4 and has qualified to do commercial work, despite all the training, he had no understanding of how his drone works, he could point at the escs but had no idea what the differences between PWM, oneshot125, oneshot42, multishot or dshot were or indeed what those protocols were, and the vulnerabilities and advantages of each protocol and what a PID controls system was, how it worked, the impact of changing loop times or pids, and the nock on effect of the esc protocols, in shot he was completely unaware of how his UAV worked, he was entirely dependant on so,e Chinese company';s product both in terms of hardware and software all of which is proprietary and presumably done on an "as cheap as possible" basis

i think this is the concern, when i started, it was off the shelf kit that was an issue. Now they are more popular and its not enough for police to just know about ';parrot devices'; for example. The work needs to be taken further and thats what I am trying to identify, where to go with regards to software, device etc etc and what are the problems

- also, what content is retained by the devices which could be used in investigations into incidents.

thanks guys

[uav_tester]

hi nate,

sorry, replied at same time, does that help above?

[Cheredanine]

Ok let';s wind this back a bit.
First I am gonna try and kill the software location solution. GPS systems do not go well (they break) a large proportion of the hobby, we are spending a lot of money trying to shave grams off the UAV, adding a GPS device and an antenna to pretty much all of my aircraft would be very difficult (unlike a mobile phone my quads have rapidly fluctuation high power wires and traces in the drive system, switching 100amps plus on and off in Microseconds produces interference which kills GPS so you need to mount the GPS antenna a long way away from the power train which isn';t practical, there just isn';t anywhere to mount it. It also kills the flight time and adds weight killing the agility.

So let';s take it back to first principles:
You want to tie the UAV to the pilot. Even with your GPS approach you need to physically have possession of the drone in order to do that

That is the first problem with an American style of registration of the UAV if you use the us style hard token on the drone or the soft token style you are considering

The second problem is that whilst this approach will capture those pilots who are dumb or ignorant ("wouldn';t it be fun to fly my phantom over a premiership football match?") but doesn';t really do anything about those who maliciously break the rules (smuggling drugs into prisons) as they would simply not register the drone and/or remove any inbuilt soft or hard token

You have a pilot who is transmitting a control signal to remote device. That control signal contains a unique signature to which the receiver on the UAV is bound.

So really what you need is not just a registration of the device, but the best method is to register the radio and its unique signature. In that way, when the drone is in the air, you can intercept the signal, identify the pilot if he is registered or identify that he is not registered, triangulate his position with RDF or use his device signature to bring the drone down
The beauty of this approach is the radio must have a signature as otherwise it can not control the drone

It would probably be best to supliement his with a hard token UAV system which ideally is IR transponder based. Small or transponders fit well on uavs, the trick is to be able to read them from a distance which comes down to your scanning device

[Revs]

First I';d just like to say that while multirotor misuse is a concern for both the police and users, it';s for different reasons. Obviously the police need to be able to catch and prosecute pilots who are using multirotors for criminal activities, nothing unreasonable there. Our concern is that the government, in an effort to make this possible, will effectly kill our much loved hobby with a draconian/knee-jerk rules and regulations. We very much want to stop the misuse, but we need to do so in a way that works for everyone. And this is entirely possible and long as we talk and listen to each other, so I';m glad you';re here to talk to us.

I think with currect level tech there are two ways of identifying pilots..
- The best way for in-flight multirotors is to simply be patient and wait for the craft to land. This should lead you straight to the pilot. I believe this is the current policy used by police.
- For crafts that have been found on the ground it';s more difficult. Traditional methods such as fingerprinting may work. Another method with some systems would be to recover the flight logs from the craft. DJI drones for example record flight data on an internal storage chip, effectly like a blackbox. But this is not the case for most other crafts.

As has been said; if someone really wants to misuse a multirotor and knows what they';re doing, there is nothing you can do other than catch them in the act. All the rules and regs in the world won';t stop this. They';ll only serve to restrict us, the responsible pilots, who are just doing it for fun.

[Fletch]

I';m not sure the open source market is what you need to target.

The RC community in general are quite open to telling people that they are being stupid or which law they are breaking, there is quite an intolerance to it.  The majority will spend hours over building and learning about the products they are using.  I';ve got over £1k worth of kit sitting on the shelf because i';m not happy with it!!

If you want proof of this join the different groups on Facebook and have a look at the differences.  Join a DJI group and comment on a photo about the legality of it and see how it goes down!

I think you';d be better off aiming at products that can be bought ';off the shelf'; like DJI and Parrot rather than the ones you have stated. (3d robotics, 3DR, Cleanflight and its forks (betaflight, raceflight and I-nav), Dronin and Openpilot?)

Not a DJI owner so going from what i have read online - DJI Requires you to do certain updates, if you don';t do the updates it can lock you out.  i';m guessing these updates are tied to an account, and that the account will require details to register.  i';d also guess it would check the serial number to ensure its a genuine DJI product and that it will record that.  Easy to track down who owns that once you have the serial number.
I';m fairly sure DJI Also records GPS history, so it should be fairly simple to then ask Who was at this location at this time ....

I';m guessing the agreement with DJI/Parrot is going to be the problem then! 

[guest325]

It';s good to see someone like yourself coming here to openly communicate with us the ';serious'; users of UAV';s, we welcome your interest in finding out more about the people who are really annoyed by some of the stupidity that is going on.
It is unfortunate that your original research was done with Parrot, their products to most of us are considered to be ';Toy'; grade!!!
Personally I fly a mixture of Gliders, Fixed wing powered and Multi-rotors, it';s a very rewarding hobby for me and really do not want to see the ';Idiot fraternity'; ruin it for me or any of my fellow hobbyists.
There are quite a few people on here who have great in depth knowledge of the intricate workings of our models - so you have definitely come to the right place for advice / assistance.

[kilby]

I';m going to come across as really rude here.

Are you sure you aren';t a student or told an employer about a great business opportunity?

I say this because if you where involved in UAV forensics you would probably have some knowledge of the subject.

BTW it';s fine not to know stuff thats where we all started, and we are happy to help, but just say this has been landed on your lap (or whatever)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Two-Six]

You sound like you are jumping on the "Anti Drone" security industry gravy train.

The problem is that this industry has a vested interest in hyping up the perceived risk of "UAV';s" to potential customers.  Lets face it, the risk of "UAV';S" has already been blown out of ALL proportion.    Almost to the point of getting the use of ANY remotely controlled aircraft banned all over Europe!

You clearly know almost nothing about anything in regards to "UAV';s".

I guess you are unaware of the EASA prototype regulations governing "UAS",  that are set to be introduced soon?

I seems obvious to me that the panel of "experts" that drew up the EASA regulations seem to be just as clueless about anything to do with RC aircraft as you are, certainly not real "UAV" operators or experts in any way but people with a background in security, law-enforcement and legal services.     

The drawing-up of pan-European legislation is driven by the authorities needing to be seen to be providing a response to the public';s perception of the massively over-inflated risk of UAV';S.

WHY has this perceived risk being over-inflated?  Because it is a gravy train and unfortunately you seem to be on it. 

I find this particularly irksome.   Sorry about that.

Still, its not all negative, your post has encouraged me to try to set myself up as a dentist! 

[uav_tester]

Hi all, apologies for late reply but thanks for replies all the same. SOme interesting points raised here.

I suppose the main suprise is the negative comments. I dont quite understand the ';gravy train'; points - is this something I am unaware of? I understand that UAVs have had some negative press but this is in the minority and I am certainly not against their usage etc etc. I think the media sensationalises some incidents with are few and far between. But locally, off the shelf devices are becoming more frequently involved in ';incidents';.

You guys rightly pointed out, I am not massivly knowledgable on UAVs - but thats why I am here, if i was I wouldnt be posting here - so i dont understand that one?

Also, you state " this could be a great business opportunity"?? for what? Im not looking for business of anything, just a bit of knowledge? Sorry chaps, dont get that either.

I think you guys dont understand, when you work in technology forensics you dont and never will know everything, I am not claiming to, but when you encounter new tech / a new problem, you have to research functionality to see what you are up against. This is something we are facing and I want to dive into this area / trying to do so.

Nothing malicious here at all, just thought it was a good place to start asking questions, ie. the people who currently fly them. I dont think I claimed to have massive knowledge of UAVs in my first post did i? I have a small budget for purchasing a test device, but I am trying to work out whether thats even pointless. As really, its only going to allow the development of best practice analysis procedures of that one type. What I am after is an idea of what we facce from the UAV market as a whole, hence the software question.

These devices are being more frequently encountered, and what worries me is the diversity of models and software. With the parrot, things were relativly striaght forward, PUD flight recordings and an internal media storage. Telenet/FTP in or clone the storage partition. The flying app was also basic with simple recordings. But as you guys say, those devices are limited and I suspect as interest grows, we will see different types.

Can I also just state, this is not some sort of crusade to over regulate their usage either. Not interested. Just looking for knowledge. but hey, this is the internet so I hear you if you shut me down.

Also, apols for spelling, writing this in a bit of a rush

Two-six - i have looked into EASA but not in depth. I did look at the CAA regs but they just cover the basics that I am aware of.





...again. Im not anti drone. sorry if my post came across that way.

[ched]

The fundamental problem is the enthusiasts are generally not the ones causing problems. My personal guess would be that people just buying a quad off the shelf is causing the majority of issues.  I would also guess that dji phantoms are the biggest issues as they are big enough to carry a payload and can travel a long distance.  As others have said dji might have registered owners by way of serial number and ip addresses but as they are not UK based you might have problems getting the data.
One thing you might not have thought of is a transmitter is bound to a receiver by a code.  If you can access this code you might be able to prove the owner of a TX is the pilot but how many codes there are I have no idea.
Might be worth looking at the biggest manufacturer first and see if they will Co operate.  If not you might have to buy a phantom maybe second hand and do some serious data analysis on the flight computer.

[iRobot]

I think you guys dont understand, when you work in technology forensics you dont and never will know everything, I am not claiming to, but when you encounter new tech / a new problem, you have to research functionality to see what you are up against. This is something we are facing and I want to dive into this area / trying to do so.

Am I missing something?
Also don';t want to sound rude,  but not very clear, when you say ';technology forensics'; is this university/college, police, military, government secret service, or press?

[Slayer23]

The truth of it all is ARE YOU BIG BROTHER ????
we are not tin foil hat wearing types but why should we leave ourselves out to dry there are enough drone haters out there so if you do not want to clarify who or what you work for why would we help ???
You want us to tell you how to catch us basically whether we fly within the law or not is irrelevant if they change the law to no flying it will still happen so why would we give you the tools to stop us ???

[Two-Six]

OK So your not anti-drone, it sounds like you are. 

"I am currently invovled in forensic analysis of UAVs and it probably is covered in the news, these devices can prove troublesome when in the wrong hands."  Like when exactly?  Unconfirmed and unsubstantiated sightings by aircraft pilots don';t really count I am afraid.   Drugs into prisons?  Well...Who really cares about that apart from Daily Mail readers?

You also mentioned "the news" which is a red flag to me but fair enough, then you say:

"in terms of traceability, what tech/software functionality allows a lost drone to be tied back to its owner?"
So your asking us how you can prosecute "UAV" pilots more easily? 

Alarm bells.

"typically my interest/ research/work covers instances where a breach of law has taken place", and so you get paid for prosecuting "UAV" operators 

Alarm bells

The  "Problems" and "Head-Aches" you mention, like how you can';t trace "UAV" operators is because there isn';t compulsory registration (yet) or that aren';t laws in force yet which will demand all kinds of ridiculous equipment to be fitted to every flying RC platform.........The solution you seek means a world of grief for all RC Aircraft fliers, it seems like a collective punishment for the bad behaviour of a tiny number of people.  The requirements for a technical solution to the registration issue will be very difficult to implement, especially the area of remote interrogation for your "UAV" ID....crazy....

Alarm bells

Also

"Traceability is the main problem faced and without it, there is no culpability for bad flying". 

What do you call "bad flying" anyway?  Its a very subjective thing indeed.

Traceability...Here are the thorny issues...
Will somebody who smuggles drugs into a prison use a registered "UAV"?  No. 
Will a terrorist use a registered UAV?  No.
Will an idiot who flies up a motorway or over a  football match or a concert use a registers "UAV" possibly yes, because they are an idiot....
 
Who will look after the data base and who will pay for it? 
What will be the penalties for not registering? 
Will the police have cause to interrogate any RC aircraft flyers for their registration details every time they spot somebody flying an RC thing?
What will need to be registered exactly anyway?


So, all in all I am afraid you did crank my tractor.

You really need to have a careful read of this for a start:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/UAS%20Prototype%20Regulation%20final.pdf

Then you will see where I am coming from.  You really don';t want to be part of the "Problem".

So apologies for being a bit negative on your first posting, like others have said its good to see you are making an effort to find out more and there is nothing wrong with not knowing stuff and this forum is a very good place to find out all you need to know about and some other stuff you might not want to know about too....

[H_Simpson]

Basically, multirotors/drones are the biggest positive phenomena/innovation of the 21st century, and dji unashamedly design and build suav';s.  Don';t blame the organ grinder for the indiscretions of the monkey!
Without their investment in this field, it would still be the preserve of the postgrad nerd. 

They';ve also created a YouTube subculture more diverse than all the controlled terrestrial channels put together. 
Rotor riot, Brighton till I fly, etc etc, toooo many to mention.

I do hate all these rotor ';experts'; out of the woodwork, soak in'; up all the Mavic';s!!

Curse you batman!
Take my dosh, I want my Mavic!

[Bad Raven]

Hi UAV-T! (I have kept quiet up to now, but you can';t be lucky forever).

Have been around UAVs for more that forty years. Currently I operate UAVs several times every week, and run two clubs using UAVs of some description. One is engineering education based in a near 2000 pupil boys school, operating twice every week. I concentrate heavily on responsible use.

However, what you raise as a UAV is something totally divorced from ANYTHING I operate or have ever operated! (because I choose not to go into autonomous or near autonomous flight, not through lack of knowledge).

THIS is how wide a subject you are straying into.   Further, the technology in your narrow area of interest is changing weekly. Your example of a "Parrot" UAV is a case in point, and why it had me amused and horrified at the same time. (sorry). You will be forever behind the technology';s ability, with no chance of being in any practical way timely and effective.

Since you are mentioning forensics and "incidents", inferring criminality and not just basic stupidity, the fact made by several before is valid, anyone choosing to break the laws in place, whatever they are, will simply and extremely easily circumvent any way of stopping them or permitting later backtracking to them. If the electronics is set to prevent them, limit them or identify them, it won';t deter or even likely delay them making it do what they want.

SO, will you be able to backtrack to people using UAV for serious crime from retrospective inspection of the craft?  NOT with any degree of reliability and certainly not in any case where the person has a single grain of common sense. And what might work for you this month will not next.

Will legislation and regulation prevent UAV being used for crime? NO.

Genie, bottle, Out......................

What is needed is a means to rapidly flag and auto locate the handshaking controlling transmitter when a UAV is "seen" to be breaking the law, which requires active, effective monitoring and policing, but like mobile phone use in cars, that is probably pie in the sky.    I drove a fair part of today in several stages, saw numerous people breaking the law using mobiles, including two HGV, saw one VERY near miss as a result, numerous people speeding WAY above limits, numerous people tailgating, and yet didn';t see a single police car - so much for a purge on law breakers!!.

[uav_tester]

The fundamental problem is the enthusiasts are generally not the ones causing problems. My personal guess would be that people just buying a quad off the shelf is causing the majority of issues.  I would also guess that dji phantoms are the biggest issues as they are big enough to carry a payload and can travel a long distance.  As others have said dji might have registered owners by way of serial number and ip addresses but as they are not UK based you might have problems getting the data.
One thing you might not have thought of is a transmitter is bound to a receiver by a code.  If you can access this code you might be able to prove the owner of a TX is the pilot but how many codes there are I have no idea.
Might be worth looking at the biggest manufacturer first and see if they will Co operate.  If not you might have to buy a phantom maybe second hand and do some serious data analysis on the flight computer.

Good point on the DJI, we got a parrot because it was only 400 quid when we did some initial research into the area, but looks like DJI is a bigger, better manufacturer.

Buying a DJI is looking like a potential way forward here. Thanks also for the reciever info. Typically, with the parrot, the user';s GooglePlay, apple id was associated with the flight app but not on the device itself. That meant that a lost parrot couldnt be paired back unless u had the suspect handset controlling it as well. Obviously if someone flies it and then runs off after an ';event'; there is an issue.

Two-Six:- Honestly im not. But my job is to look into incidents that involve them - if these type of cases so happen to fall into my workload. Again, I dont want to continue to justify myself but i see where you are coming from also.

- i also never mentioned news, just media. The problem is, there are cases that dont hit the news. Im not saying its overrun with incidents, its not. But there are minor cases.

- I am never going to convince you here, and thats fine.

"Traceability is the main problem faced and without it, there is no culpability for bad flying".

What do you call "bad flying" anyway?  Its a very subjective thing indeed.

Traceability...Here are the thorny issues...
Will somebody who smuggles drugs into a prison use a registered "UAV"?  No.
Will a terrorist use a registered UAV?  No.
Will an idiot who flies up a motorway or over a  football match or a concert use a registers "UAV" possibly yes, because they are an idiot....

Who will look after the data base and who will pay for it?
What will be the penalties for not registering?
Will the police have cause to interrogate any RC aircraft flyers for their registration details every time they spot somebody flying an RC thing?
What will need to be registered exactly anyway?

all good points, and this is the issue. I dont care about flying them, what I am bothered about is those incidents where the devices might be used in something where there ';must'; be traceability. But you are right, it will likely never be achieved. Any procedures put in place could either not be adhererd to or modified to work around.

The problem I see if that off the shelf vendors may have something like a google play/apple app where the very act of signing in and syncing to the device leaves account details behind. enough in some instances. However, its not clearly a reliable option, expecially for more advanced kit which was why i came here to learn a bit more.

Slayer: - im not interested in stopping you mate. Thats not the purpose of this. I hope that is clear by now.

IRobot:- I am a forensic analyst.


=======

Just out of curiosity, are there ';events'; I could go to and meet people involved in this sort of thing as I would be curious to talk to people about this stuff ..........I say this tentativly as I';m sure its making me sound like a journalist haha so you dont have to answer. I just get the feeling that if i was local and not out my way, I could do a better job in person at explaining my stand point.




Everything a side, this is informative for me. I had no idea that you guys felt this way about these type of issues

[ched]

There is the Drone show at beginning of December I think in Birmingham.  Lots of vendors and enthusiasts will be there.

[uav_tester]

THIS is how wide a subject you are straying into.   Further, the technology in your narrow area of interest is changing weekly. Your example of a "Parrot" UAV is a case in point, and why it had me amused and horrified at the same time. (sorry). You will be forever behind the technology';s ability, with no chance of being in any practical way timely and effective.

Since you are mentioning forensics and "incidents", inferring criminality and not just basic stupidity, the fact made by several before is valid, anyone choosing to break the laws in place, whatever they are, will simply and extremely easily circumvent any way of stopping them or permitting later backtracking to them. If the electronics is set to prevent them, limit them or identify them, it won';t deter or even likely delay them making it do what they want.

SO, will you be able to backtrack to people using UAV for serious crime from retrospective inspection of the craft?  NOT with any degree of reliability and certainly not in any case where the person has a single grain of common sense. And what might work for you this month will not next.

Bad Raven, thank you for your input here.

We got a parrot because we encountered on and it made sense to start somewhere that we new had an element of popularity with what was at the time ';a craze'; or so it seemed in terms of something an average joe would pickup as a novel toy. Im a novice but spent a week flying it round to get test data and investigate the useage of it and was shocked at it really. A flying memory stick to a point.

You have also highlighted what did concern me. Anyone can probably circumvent any thing in place to detect. In the parrot, you could easily stop/remove flight logs preventing anything being stored regarding what you did / where you flew.

And you are right, we are always behind the kit, which is why i didnt want to just dive straight in and buy a test device. A) it will be out of date before i finish the investigation and b) chances are we see a different device come in, which would be annoying.

Thats why i came here to see if there is any base software used in which to build upon etc.

[iRobot]

IRobot:- I am a forensic analyst.

Are you really, for who?

Toys ';r';  us
British Airways /caa
Nasa
Subway?

[hoverfly]

Don';t forget the definition of an "expert"
Its the person from another place who tells you what you want to hear.

[kilby]

I think things may be getting off the beaten track a bit and my phrasing may have moved it in that direction.

I have been involved with finding out why incidents occur in the digital realm for decades, and indeed nobody knows everything.

However we do tend to grab manuals from manufacturer sites, grab every manual and tool available and then torture their tech departments for additional info (regardless of buying their products)

I also have an inordinately large amount of crap I have gathered together to research such things (and is often repurposed into new realms)

Hence me asking you if you where a student landed with an assignment?

Cursory browsing of the Arducopter site would have shown what logs are available as would a little time on the DJI site.

The Parrot AR drone has a GPS option that logs flight details, and I';m assuming the Parrot also carries similar logs (if I actually grabbed their docs from their site)

The Parrot can also run the Arducopter code.

Most folks here tend to fly acro style machines, without GPS etc.

However it isn';t all that unusual to be on the receiving end of self-appointed guardians and lunatics coming out with spurious statements regarding legality and national security.

People may seem a little touchy but even in a proper flying club we have been abused and then police called for flying in the centre of 25 acres of private land.

Considering the complainants where trespassing (it was our land,) the police simply came out with your flying is annoying people maybe you should stop, and that was with fixed wing models.

So folks can get a bit touchy.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[uav_tester]

I think things may be getting off the beaten track a bit and my phrasing may have moved it in that direction.

I have been involved with finding out why incidents occur in the digital realm for decades, and indeed nobody knows everything.

However we do tend to grab manuals from manufacturer sites, grab every manual and tool available and then torture their tech departments for additional info (regardless of buying their products)

I also have an inordinately large amount of crap I have gathered together to research such things (and is often repurposed into new realms)

Hence me asking you if you where a student landed with an assignment?

Cursory browsing of the Arducopter site would have shown what logs are available as would a little time on the DJI site.

The Parrot AR drone has a GPS option that logs flight details, and I';m assuming the Parrot also carries similar logs (if I actually grabbed their docs from their site)

The Parrot can also run the Arducopter code.

Most folks here tend to fly acro style machines, without GPS etc.

However it isn';t all that unusual to be on the receiving end of self-appointed guardians and lunatics coming out with spurious statements regarding legality and national security.

People may seem a little touchy but even in a proper flying club we have been abused and then police called for flying in the centre of 25 acres of private land.

Considering the complainants where trespassing (it was our land,) the police simply came out with your flying is annoying people maybe you should stop, and that was with fixed wing models.

So folks can get a bit touchy.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I understand. No, im not a student with an assignment.

Yes, typically would look at vendor material and see what could be understood from there. But just thought it would be a good chance to stop by here and see.

[Cheredanine]

@uav_tester,
Did you read my second post above?
(Or did I miss your response?)

If you didn';t then please take a look
If you did but felt it wasn';t appropriate to what you are looking at then I assume you work for a commercial outfit? (Forensic analyst for whose?)

[uav_tester]

@uav_tester,
Did you read my second post above?
(Or did I miss your response?)

If you didn';t then please take a look
If you did but felt it wasn';t appropriate to what you are looking at then I assume you work for a commercial outfit? (Forensic analyst for whose?)

Ahh thanks, I missed it above. Is it this one ---> http://www.ukdroneshow.com/

looks pretty comprehensive

[Slayer23]

Sorry but when a hobby is constantly under attack by people what kind of response do you expect when you come and asks questions but are unwilling to divulge in what respect you wish to use this information ?????
Yes we are protective only because too many attacks are made on the hobby without any proof being given!!!!!

drugs get into prisons with or without drones they are not the only way but we do not hear of police cracking down on those do we???

Birds hit planes every day but no report of that either

So as for you being a forensic investigator maybe a more tactfull approach and getting us on your side would have been easier

[Cheredanine]

No post 7 in this thread