AeroGuard: evaluate drone command and telemetry security

An organisation using drones to collect sensitive information needs to understand more than the aircraft and its camera. It needs to know which software can issue commands, where telemetry travels and what evidence remains when an instruction is challenged. Those questions concern the whole connection between mission software and the aircraft.

AeroGuard is AIC’s software and hardware framework for drone command security, protected telemetry and operational policy enforcement. It is live and available now for customer demonstrations. Scope the session around the aircraft, controller interfaces and network the organisation intends to use.

Start with the command path

AeroGuard places a security layer between mission-control applications and the flight controller. Its controls cover command validation, signed flight plans and geofences, telemetry protection and records of control interactions. Operators can inspect the permitted command paths and the evidence of how they are used.

A useful first discussion identifies every component that can issue an instruction. That includes the mission application, controller interface and any supporting service within the proposed integration. The team can then agree which interactions the demonstration will exercise and what an accepted or rejected request should look like.

AeroGuard integrates with compatible platforms through assessed interfaces. Confirm the aircraft, flight controller and control-stack versions during technical discovery. Those details determine the integration work and the command paths included in the customer demonstration.

Follow the telemetry as carefully as the commands

Drone data may pass through a controller, local software, a relay and a hosted service before an analyst receives it. The evaluation needs an agreed account of those paths. Which information stays local? Which information leaves the customer environment? Which endpoints receive it, and what protection applies at each stage?

AeroGuard’s controls include AES-256 and TLS-secured telemetry, signed operational policies, integrity checks and command logging. Review the keys, endpoint configuration, hardware integration and retained records in the intended setup. That establishes the protection applied to the actual telemetry paths.

For intelligence organisations, the interest is direct: collection systems should preserve control over sensitive observations and provide a reviewable record of the software interactions around them. An agreed evaluation can test those properties using representative, authorised data and a controlled setup.

Scope the intended operating environment

The AeroGuard project overview describes the software and hardware framework and its .NET engineering basis. Integration paths include edge nodes, Windows, Azure and on-premise environments. Select the configuration around the customer’s permitted data routes and operating requirements.

Include a loss of external connectivity in the controlled test. Inspect which functions remain available, what information is retained and what happens when communications return. Keep those observations with the tested configuration and its local dependencies.

Keep command security, communications availability and aircraft safety requirements distinct in the review. A validated command path is one part of an operational system. The aircraft, controller, communications arrangement and operating procedures still need their own assessment and approval.

Put acceptance checks into the demonstration

Begin with the actual mission-control stack and a documented test boundary. Agree the commands, policy conditions and telemetry flows to inspect. Demonstrate an authorised interaction and review the resulting record. Then test selected invalid or unauthorised inputs within the controlled environment and inspect the response.

Include the signed flight-plan or geofence policy relevant to the demonstration. Establish how the system identifies the applicable policy, how a change is handled and how the reviewer can determine which version was in force. The aim is to make the control decision and its supporting evidence understandable.

Also inspect integrity monitoring and the audit trail. Can the team follow a control interaction through the components being evaluated? Are timestamps, endpoints and outcomes sufficient for the agreed review? Record limitations, unsupported interfaces and any further assurance work alongside the successful checks.

The AeroGuard command and telemetry evaluation sets out an illustrative demonstration using approved hardware, synthetic requests and telemetry. AIC’s broader UAS security and control case study provides related security engineering context.

Fit collection security into the wider intelligence workflow

Protecting the collection interface addresses one part of an intelligence system. After collection, organisations still need to process data, preserve source material and manage the assessment. GTK 2.0, NERVE and CORTEX cover those different responsibilities within AIC’s portfolio.

The Constellation intelligence software guide explains those roles. Define any transfer from the aircraft integration to an analysis platform through supported formats, interfaces and handling rules, with an owner for each side of the exchange.

Compare a defined integration scope

The cost discussion should identify the security engineering already provided by AeroGuard and the aircraft-specific work still required. Compare licensing, integration, hardware, testing, support and assurance with the alternative of commissioning and maintaining the same controls independently. A scoped proposal gives the buyer something measurable to compare.

Book an AeroGuard customer demonstration. Bring the aircraft and controller details, mission-control software, telemetry routes, network limits and operational policies you need to examine. AIC can use that information to prepare the relevant demonstration and an evaluation plan for your environment.