BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATION MODULE TO ENHANCE CUBESAT SECURITY

Authors

  • Amina Albalooshi Satellite Design and Construction, Bahrain Space Agency, Bahrain
  • Ali Almahmood Satellite Design and Construction, Bahrain Space Agency, Bahrain https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1147-4912

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/ijoest.v9.i5.2025.720

Keywords:

Cubesat, Security, Authentication

Abstract

CubeSats suffer from limitations in power and processing capacity, often leading developers with limited options in implementing data security measures thereby increasing the vulnerability to data breaches and unauthorized access. These attacks negatively affected CubeSat operations or caused losing control over CubeSats in orbit; therefore, recent missions have prioritized the implementation of security measures, with data encryption being the most common method to defend against eavesdropping, and authentication protocols to prevent unauthorized access. This study presents an application of a Fuzzy Logic-based Authentication module to enhance CubeSats' security with minimal strain on the processing power of the Command and Data Handling System (CDHS) and without the need of additional hardware, targeting missions with constrained budgets relying solely on Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) hardware. The module addresses cyber-attacks by analyzing the typing pattern transmitted during the initial communication, in addition to the username and password, such that authenticated users are granted access to the CubeSat. The success criteria defined in this study were based on two primary elements: (1) granting access to authenticated users with accurate credentials and (2) denying access for any user attempting impersonation, regardless of providing correct credentials. During initial testing, the algorithm achieved a 97% success rate in authenticating legitimate users, while maintaining an average 95% success rate in detecting impersonation attempts. These results will be verified after the launch of the CubeSat, where the algorithm will undergo further testing in real-time operations, as its performance is influenced by operators’ behavior, which can vary significantly during actual use.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Almazrouei, A., Khan, A., Almesmari, A., Albuainain, A., Bushlaibi, A., Al Mahmood, A., AlBalooshi, A., et al. (2021). A Complete Mission Concept Design and Analysis of the Student-Led Cubesat Project: Light-1. In Proceedings of the Aerospace Engineering Conference 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8090247

CCSDS Secretariat. (2006). Security Threats Against Space Missions (Green Book, Issue 1). Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS).

Challa, O., Bhat, G., & McNair, J. (2012). CubeSec and GndSec: A Lightweight Security Solution for CubeSat Communications. Paper Presented at the 26th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT.

CodeCrucks. (2021, August 10). What is Fuzzy Membership Function—A Complete Guide. CodeCrucks.

Falco, G. (2019). Cybersecurity Principles for Space Systems. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 16(2), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010693

Falco, G., Viswanathan, A., & Santangelo, A. (2021). CubeSat Security Attack Tree Analysis. In 2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology (SMC-IT). https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC-IT51442.2021.00016

Ghandour, A., & Abdallah, M. (2018). Design of a Lebanese Cube Satellite. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Electronic Conference on Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecrs-2-05135

Masum. (2022, February 15). Effect of Sample Size in Central Limit Theorem. Medium.

Mathews, M. (2021). Using Bit Flips as a Source of Randomness in CubeSat Communication Encryption. Acta Astronautica, 186, 546–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.11.036

Downloads

Published

2025-11-04

How to Cite

Albalooshi, A., & Almahmood, A. (2025). BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATION MODULE TO ENHANCE CUBESAT SECURITY. International Journal of Engineering Science Technologies, 9(5), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.29121/ijoest.v9.i5.2025.720