Authentication Security of PRF GNSS Ranging

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.02196
• Title: Authentication Security of PRF GNSS Ranging
• Author: Jason Anderson (Xona Space Systems)
• Classification: cs.CR (Cryptography and Security), eess.SP (Signal Processing)
• Publication Date: October 2025
• Journal: Journal of LaTeX Class Files, Vol. 14, No. 8
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02196

Abstract

This research derives the authentication security of pseudorandom function (PRF) GNSS ranging under multiple GNSS spoofing models, including the Secure Code Estimation and Replay (SCER) spoofing attack. When GNSS ranging codes are derived from PRFs generated using keys known only to the broadcaster, spoofers cannot predict the ranging codes before transmission. Therefore, PRF ranging can be used to establish trust in GNSS pseudoranges and the resulting receiver position, navigation, and timing (PNT) solutions. The authors apply this methodology to the Galileo Signal Authentication Service (SAS), utilizing encrypted Galileo E6-C signals to determine that a maximum of 400ms of Galileo E6-C data is required to assert 128-bit authentication security under the non-SCER model.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem addressed by this research is the authentication security of GNSS signals. As GNSS signal spoofing becomes prevalent in conflict zones and near critical infrastructure, ensuring the authenticity of GNSS signals has become a critical challenge.

Problem Significance

1. Practical Threats: GNSS signal spoofing has become a real-world threat, affecting the reliability of navigation systems
2. Security Requirements: Both civilian and military applications require trusted position, navigation, and timing services
3. Technology Development: Galileo SAS, Xona Space Systems, and others are deploying encrypted authentication signals

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Watermarking Approaches: While mathematical models for combined watermarking exist, PRF ranging lacks equivalent security analysis
2. Pseudorange Difference Methods: Methods based on authenticated and non-authenticated pseudorange differences have specificity issues
3. Insufficient Statistical Arguments: Existing work does not fully exploit the relationships between multiple unpredictable code chips and the rapid decay of binomial distribution tails

Core Contributions

1. Mathematical Security Model: Provides a complete probabilistic model for Probability of Missed Detection (PMD) and Probability of False Alarm (PFA) for PRF GNSS ranging
2. Multiple Adversarial Models: Analyzes security under both Non-SCER and SCER adversarial models
3. Practical Application: Applies theory to Galileo E6-C signals, providing specific security parameter recommendations
4. Device Prediction: Predicts the receiver equipment specifications required for SCER attackers
5. Monte Carlo Verification: Validates theoretical derivations through simulation experiments

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Design a signal processing algorithm capable of:

• Input: Baseband samples of PRF ranging signals
• Output: Authentication decision (authentic/spoofed)
• Constraints: Satisfying standard cryptographic security levels (e.g., 128-bit security)

System Model

Signal Model

GNSS authentication baseband signal is modeled as:

S_auth = √P * R_PRF + N

Where:

• P: Signal power
• R_PRF: PRF sequence replica with elements {-1, 1}
• N: Noise, N ~ N(0, σ²)

Receiver Processing Architecture

As shown in Figure 1, the receiver comprises:

1. Standard Tracking Loop: Carrier removal, Early-Prompt-Late (EPL) correlators
2. PRF Matched Filter: Correlation using known R_PRF
3. Gain Adjustment: k_PRF = 1/(FT) * 1/√P
4. Averaging Filter: Averaging over W ranging codes
5. Threshold Decision: Using 0.5 as decision threshold

Adversarial Model Analysis

Non-SCER Adversary

Non-SCER adversaries cannot observe PRF chips and can only guess randomly:

S_¬SCER = √P * R_¬SCER + N

PMD Derivation:

PMD|¬SCER = Σ_b ccdf_N_FTW(0.5 - g(b/W)) · Pr(b = B_¬SCER,W)

Where B_¬SCER,W ~ B(nW, 0.5) follows a binomial distribution.

SCER Adversary

SCER adversaries can measure code chips with chip estimation probability:

p = cdf_N(√P)

For hard-decision SCER (HDSCER):

B_HDSCER,W ~ B(nW, p)

Technical Innovations

1. Exact PMD Calculation: Provides precise security calculations using convolutions of binomial and normal distributions
2. Conservative Model Assumptions: Employs worst-case assumptions (C/N₀ = 30 dB-Hz, Nyquist sampling) to ensure security lower bounds
3. CLT Approximation Optimization: Uses central limit theorem for parameter search, then verifies with exact formulas
4. Soft Information Analysis: Introduces PSCER model to analyze potential advantages of soft information

Experimental Setup

Galileo E6-C Parameters

• Number of Chips: n = 5115 chips/ms
• Sampling Frequency: F = 10.230 MHz (Nyquist frequency)
• Time Duration: T = 1 ms
• Conservative C/N₀: 30 dB-Hz

Evaluation Metrics

• PMD (Probability of Missed Detection): Probability that spoofed signals are misclassified as authentic
• PFA (Probability of False Alarm): Probability that authentic signals are misclassified as spoofed
• Security Level: Expressed as 2^(-k), e.g., 128-bit security requires PMD < 2^(-128)

Comparison Methods

• Theoretical derivation vs. Monte Carlo simulation
• HDSCER vs. PSCER performance comparison
• Security analysis for different aggregation times W

Experimental Results

Main Results

Non-SCER Security

Based on Figure 2 results:

• 32-bit Security: Requires W ≥ 77ms of data aggregation
• 128-bit Security: Requires W ≥ 341ms of data aggregation
• Practical Recommendation: Considering practical applications, 100ms and 400ms are recommended respectively

SCER Attack Prediction

Based on Figure 4 analysis:

• Critical Threshold: System security is completely compromised when adversary chip SNR reaches -3.42dB
• Equipment Requirements: Requires approximately 15dB gain directional antenna to achieve effective attack
• Detection Possibility: Required equipment scale makes ground-based detection and neutralization feasible

Verification Experiments

Monte Carlo Verification

• Non-SCER Verification: 10,000 trials verify formula (21) accuracy, with theoretical predictions and simulation results consistent within 99.7% confidence interval
• HDSCER Verification: 10,000 trials verify formula (23), achieving similarly high consistency

PSCER Soft Information Advantage

• PSCER demonstrates approximately 0.6dB performance advantage over HDSCER
• Limited advantage can be compensated by SNR adjustment in HDSCER analysis

Practical Application Guidance

Galileo SAS Design

1. Multiple Attempt Scenario: When receivers need to search for correlation peaks, 341ms aggregation is recommended to ensure 128-bit security
2. Auxiliary Signal Scenario: When assisted by co-phase signals like E6-B, 77ms aggregation provides 32-bit security
3. Practical Recommendation: Considering engineering margins, integer values of 100ms and 400ms are recommended

Related Work

GNSS Authentication Technology Development

1. Watermarking Techniques: Xona's Pulsar, GPS's Chimera employ watermarking approaches
2. PRF Technology: GPS M-Code, Galileo PRS and other encrypted signals
3. TESLA Framework: Time-efficient stream loss-tolerant authentication protocol

Theoretical Analysis Progress

1. Combined Watermarking: Complete PMD/PFA mathematical models exist
2. PRF Analysis Gap: This paper fills the theoretical gap in PRF ranging authentication
3. Adversarial Models: Systematic analysis of SCER models

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Security Quantification: First precise mathematical security model for PRF GNSS ranging
2. Practical Parameters: Provides specific aggregation time recommendations for Galileo E6-C
3. Adversarial Analysis: Predicts equipment specifications required for SCER attacks, providing protection guidance
4. Design Guidance: Enables receivers to relax thresholds while maintaining security to improve specificity

Limitations

1. SCER Soft Information: Lacks complete mathematical model for SCER attacks exploiting soft information
2. Conservative Assumptions: 30 dB-Hz C/N₀ assumption is overly conservative; actual performance will be better
3. Environmental Factors: Insufficient consideration of multipath, interference, and other real-world environmental effects
4. Clock Dependency: SCER protection requires GNSS-independent clock with very high precision requirements

Future Directions

1. Soft Information SCER: Develop complete mathematical models for soft information exploitation
2. Practical Validation: Verify theoretical predictions in real GNSS environments
3. Multi-Signal Fusion: Study joint authentication security of multiple PRF signals
4. Adaptive Thresholds: Dynamically adjust authentication thresholds based on environmental conditions

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Completeness: Provides the first complete mathematical framework for PRF GNSS ranging authentication
2. Practical Value: Directly applicable to deployed Galileo SAS systems
3. Sufficient Verification: High consistency between theoretical derivations and Monte Carlo simulations
4. Adversarial Analysis: Systematic analysis of different adversarial models with equipment requirement predictions
5. Engineering Guidance: Provides specific parameter recommendations for practical system design

Weaknesses

1. Model Simplification: SCER soft information model is oversimplified; actual attacks may be more complex
2. Environmental Assumptions: Idealized channel model insufficiently considers real propagation environments
3. Device Detection: Insufficient analysis of feasibility for SCER device detection and neutralization
4. Dynamic Scenarios: Does not consider dynamic scenarios such as mobile receivers

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Fills theoretical gap in PRF GNSS authentication security analysis
2. Industrial Application: Directly supports deployed commercial GNSS authentication systems
3. Standards Development: May influence future GNSS authentication standards
4. Security Assessment: Provides quantitative tools for GNSS system security assessment

Applicable Scenarios

1. High Security Requirements: Military and critical infrastructure applications with high security demands
2. PRF Signals: Applicable to all PRF-based GNSS authentication systems
3. System Design: Design and parameter optimization of GNSS authentication systems
4. Security Assessment: Security assessment of existing and future GNSS systems

References

The paper cites 18 important references covering:

• GNSS authentication technology development history
• TESLA protocol and related cryptographic foundations
• Galileo SAS and related European technical documentation
• GNSS spoofing detection and countermeasure techniques
• Author's previous work on watermark authentication

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality technical paper that achieves excellent balance between theoretical rigor and practical value. The paper fills an important theoretical gap in PRF GNSS ranging authentication security analysis and provides valuable design guidance for deployed systems. While there is room for improvement in analyzing certain complex attack models, the overall contribution is significant and holds important implications for GNSS security.