Regarding MAVLink Encryption

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Ajeet

unread,
Dec 23, 2025, 5:29:32 AM (2 days ago) Dec 23
to MAVLink

Hello MAVLink maintainers and community members,

I have been working closely with MAVLink in security-sensitive UAV applications and wanted to understand the design rationale behind the absence of a native, end-to-end encrypted MAVLink protocol version.

While MAVLink 2.0 introduced important improvements such as message signing (authentication and integrity), it still does not provide payload confidentiality. In practical deployments—especially defense, government, and critical infrastructure UAV systems—unencrypted telemetry and command channels pose serious security risks (eavesdropping, traffic analysis, replay preparation, etc.), even when signing is enabled.

Many users currently implement external encryption layers (VPNs, TLS tunnels, custom AES/HMAC wrappers, radio-level encryption, etc.), but this leads to:

  • Fragmented, non-standard security implementations

  • Increased integration complexity across GCS, autopilot, and companion computers

  • Inconsistent security guarantees across MAVLink ecosystems

From a protocol design perspective, I would appreciate clarification on the following:

  1. Is the absence of native encryption a deliberate architectural decision?
    (e.g., due to low-bandwidth links, MCU constraints, backward compatibility, or regulatory/export concerns)

  2. Are there any ongoing or planned discussions about an encrypted MAVLink variant or optional encrypted transport mode?

  3. Would the MAVLink team consider a standardized approach (e.g., negotiated session keys, encrypted payload frames, or pluggable crypto backends) while preserving lightweight operation?

  4. What is the recommended long-term security model for MAVLink in hostile or contested RF environments?

Given the increasing use of UAVs in security-critical missions, having a standardized, protocol-level encryption option could significantly strengthen MAVLink’s adoption and trust in such domains.

Any insights, references to prior discussions, or future roadmap pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and for maintaining such a widely used and impactful protocol.

Best regards,
Ajeet
Electronics & Communication Engineer
(UAV Security / MAVLink Developer)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages