# A Distributed RF Threat Sensing Architecture
## 2 Related Work
### Jamming Attacks
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Jamming Attack Type** & **Strengths** & **Limitations** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Constant Jamming**} & - & Simple to implement. & - & Easily detectable due to continuous interference. \\  & - & Highly effective in disrupting communication. & - & Requires high power for constant transmission. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Deceptive Jamming**} & - & Harder to detect since it mimics legitimate communication. & - & Less effective in completely blocking communications. \\  & - & Wastes network resources. & - & Detection requires deeper packet analysis. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Random Jamming**} & - & Conserves attacker’s energy by alternating jamming and non-jamming periods. & - & Less disruptive compared with constant jamming. \\  & - & Energy-efficient since it only jams when legitimate transmission is detected. & - & Random nature makes it less consistent in impact. \\  & - & Difficult to detect due to intermittent activity. & - & Complex timing requirements for effective attack. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Reactive Jamming**} & - & Targets critical channels or communications. & - & Requires knowledge of the system to be targeted. \\  & - & High disruption with minimal power consumption. & - & Limited to specific channels, not broad-spectrum. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Pulse Jamming**} & - & Effective in disrupting certain modulation schemes. & - & Less efficient for long-duration jamming. \\  & - & Can bypass some anti-jamming measures. & - & Can be countered with advanced detection algorithms. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Spot Jamming**} & - & Focused disruption on a single frequency or band. & - & Easily detectable due to narrowband attack. \\  & - & Highly effective if the frequency is critical. & - & Limited scope; can be bypassed by frequency hopping. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sweep Jamming**} & - & Can cover a broad range of frequencies, disrupting multiple channels. & - & Requires significant power. \\  & - & Enstiping multiple channels. & - & Less efficient than targeted jamming methods. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Barrage Jamming**} & - & Disrupts multiple frequencies simultaneously. & - & High power consumption. \\  & - & Highly effective in broad-spectrum attacks. & - & Easily detectable due to large interference area. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Intelligent Jamming**} & - & Adapts based on the system’s response, making it highly efficient. & - & Requires advanced machine learning techniques. \\  & - & Harder to counter due to its adaptive nature. & - & Complex to implement and may be computationally expensive. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Strengths and limitations of jamming attack methods. Summing up, understanding these different types of jamming attacks helps in developing effective detection techniques and countermeasures to protect wireless communications from such threats. For some methods, the pattern or the effect of the jammer can be easily identified but, for others, the probability of detecting a jammer could be low (e.g., random jammers, intelligent jammers). Jamming attacks can interrupt communication, cause connectivity problems, avoid the availability of services, and, eventually, degrade the performance of legitimate user devices significantly, regarding both energy consumption and the network throughput. Communication interruptions, connection problems, and unavailability of the service can not only negatively affect the performance of the system.