1. Risk

Risk Statement

The failure to implement software requirements as outlined in NASA-STD-1006 (the NASA Standard for Cybersecurity for Space Flight Systems) poses a significant risk to the resilience and survivability of NASA missions and their associated software systems against deliberate, purposeful threats. NASA-STD-1006 defines requirements and practices to ensure that space systems are designed to withstand, detect, and recover from cybersecurity threats and adversarial actions targeting both spaceborne and ground-based assets. By neglecting to implement these requirements, NASA missions are left vulnerable to cyberattacks, counterspace threats, and other security risks that could compromise software, systems, and mission objectives.

The growing global accessibility to space technologies, the proliferation of advanced cyber capabilities, and the increasing reliance on space systems for critical national, scientific, and commercial functions exacerbate this risk. Adversaries now possess the capability and desire to disrupt, degrade, or destroy U.S. space assets, including satellites, ground stations, and related infrastructure. Hostile actions may threaten system functionality, deny access to space resources, corrupt mission-critical software, or prevent the execution of nominal and off-nominal operations. These emerging risks are no longer confined to major global powers but are increasingly accessible to smaller nations, organized groups, and independent actors with malicious intent.

The failure to implement cybersecurity and resilience-focused software requirements leaves NASA space systems ill-prepared to counter these threats. Vulnerabilities in the software—including unmitigated attack surfaces, unprotected interfaces, lack of intrusion detection, and insufficient fault recovery capabilities—greatly increase the likelihood of system compromise. Such compromises could result in partial or total mission failures, the inability to recover or re-establish control of mission assets, and a loss of critical scientific data or national security capabilities. The consequences extend far beyond individual missions, threatening NASA's reputation, U.S. leadership in space, and the security of national and allied interests.

Key Drivers of Risk and Threat Landscape

1. Growing Threat of Purposeful Attacks Against Space Systems

Space systems and their corresponding software are increasingly strategic targets for adversaries who seek to disrupt or deny U.S. access and operational capabilities in space. Key factors include:

• Technology Proliferation and Accessibility: Sophisticated space and cyber technologies are becoming increasingly available to both state and non-state actors on the global market. This allows hostile entities to acquire or develop tools for conducting counterspace operations.
• Globalization of Space Programs: More nations and private organizations are entering the space industry, increasing the risk of adversaries gaining knowledge or access to sensitive U.S. space system designs, operations, and vulnerabilities.
• Intent and Motivation of Adversaries: Adversarial nations and groups recognize that targeting space assets provides an asymmetric means of undermining U.S. technological and strategic superiority. Attacks on satellites, for instance, yield significant disruption relative to the resources required to execute them.
• Cyberattack Trends: Space systems are increasingly reliant on software-defined functions, making them vulnerable to cyberattacks such as:
  • Malware Insertion: Targeting critical mission software to achieve denial or degradation of functionality.
  • Unauthorized Commands: Hacking into ground or space command systems to disrupt or seize control of satellite operations.
  • Data Interception or Corruption: Intercepting or corrupting data in transit between space and ground nodes, potentially compromising mission outcomes.

2. Advanced Technical Capabilities to Deny, Degrade, or Destroy Space Systems

Modern adversaries possess a diverse and growing toolkit for conducting counterspace activities. Such activities can exploit software vulnerabilities in both spaceborne and ground-based operations. Specific threats include:

• Jamming and Spoofing of Communications: Interrupting or deceiving the communication links between satellites and ground stations; for example, by tricking a satellite into executing false commands.
• Kinetic Physical Attacks: The physical destruction of satellites or ground infrastructure using missiles, vehicle collisions, or other acts of sabotage, often coordinated via software failures or disruptions introduced by adversaries.
• Cyber-Physical Intrusions: Employing advanced cyberattacks to interface with and corrupt space systems, such as gaining unauthorized access to modify flight software or disable navigation capabilities.
• Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Exploiting vulnerabilities in the development, integration, or deployment supply chains of software systems to embed trapdoors, malware, or defective code.

3. Lack of Resilience Without NASA-STD-1006 Requirements Implementation

NASA-STD-1006 provides cybersecurity and resilience-focused requirements specifically tailored to counter the unique challenges of space systems. Failure to implement these requirements leaves mission software unable to withstand purposeful attacks, as it lacks the necessary:

• Threat Mitigation Capabilities: Without hardened software protections, systems are more susceptible to external attacks.
• Fault Detection and Recovery Mechanisms: Software systems may fail to detect intrusions or may lack the ability to recover from faults during operations.
• Continuity and Redundancy Protections: Insufficiently resilient software risks total mission compromise following a single point of failure.
• Operational Risk Assessments: Without risk-based implementation of NASA-STD-1006 requirements, potential attack vectors and mission vulnerabilities remain unmitigated.

Consequences of This Risk

1. Severe Mission Disruption or Failure

• Software vulnerabilities left unprotected due to non-implementation of NASA-STD-1006 increases the risk of catastrophic mission failures. A failure could occur during software-intensive operations, such as autonomous navigation, payload control, or communications.
  • Impact Example: An adversary disrupts the software responsible for spacecraft orientation, resulting in irreconcilable trajectory deviations during critical mission phases (e.g., planetary entry, Earth return).

2. Inability to Ensure Mission Resilience

• A lack of adherence to NASA-STD-1006 leaves no guarantees that systems can recover from attacks or faults, potentially rendering the mission inoperable.
  • Impact Example: A mission experiences hardware malfunctions triggered by adversary-induced software attacks but lacks recovery protocols in the software to restore nominal operations.

3. Data Theft or Corruption

• Unsecured software and communications systems increase the risk of critical mission data being intercepted or corrupted by adversaries.
  • Impact Example: Scientific data collected during a planetary mission is tampered with, rendering it unusable and invalidating years of mission work.

4. Loss of U.S. Strategic and Technological Superiority

• Space systems represent strategic assets for national defense, global positioning, weather prediction, and more. Unprotected systems increase national exposure to adversarial actions, resulting in a diminished U.S. global leadership role in space.
  • Impact Example: An adversarial nation executes an attack on vital U.S. space systems, degrading their operability during an international crisis.

5. Erosion of Stakeholder Confidence

• Failing to implement NASA-STD-1006 requirements demonstrates neglect of modern best practices for cybersecurity and resilience, jeopardizing stakeholder trust in NASA’s ability to protect its assets.
  • Impact Example: Funding organizations and governmental oversight bodies lose confidence in NASA’s ability to manage risks and protect sensitive assets, affecting program funding and scheduling.

2. Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation and Prevention Strategies

1. Prioritize Full Implementation of NASA-STD-1006 Requirements

• Ensure all software engineering teams design, implement, and test systems according to the resilience-focused criteria defined in NASA-STD-1006.
• Develop baseline system architectures that include hardened software protections and fault recovery protocols.

2. Conduct Rigorous Cybersecurity Testing

• Test software and systems against known adversarial tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), including penetration testing, red-teaming, and attack simulations.
• Introduce verification processes to ensure all safety-critical software components meet NASA-STD-1006 compliance standards.

3. Harden Software Interfaces Against Attack

• Incorporate strong encryption, authentication, and intrusion detection/prevention systems into all software responsible for command, control, and communication functionalities.

4. Include Resilience Engineering in Software Design

• Design software to detect, mitigate, and autonomously recover from security incidents, faults, or disruptions. Fault-tolerant capabilities should emphasize real-time diagnostics and continuous operation for critical space systems.

5. Strengthen Supply Chain Integrity

• Mitigate risks associated with third-party software by ensuring all externally acquired code meets NASA-STD-1006 requirements. Perform rigorous review of supply chain sources for potential backdoors and vulnerabilities.

6. Educate and Train Development Teams

• Conduct training programs to ensure software developers and engineers fully understand the critical role of NASA-STD-1006 in building resilient systems.

Conclusion

Failing to implement software requirements per NASA-STD-1006 leaves NASA systems and missions vulnerable to an evolving landscape of adversarial threats and purposeful attacks. By prioritizing adherence to this standard, NASA can ensure that its systems are robust, resilient, and capable of withstanding and recovering from both nominal software faults and deliberate cyber or physical threats. Proactive implementation of these requirements safeguards mission success, protects national assets, and reinforces U.S. leadership in space exploration and security.

3. Resources

3.1 References