Towards effective feature selection in machine learning-based botnet detection approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botnets, as one of the most formidable cyber security threats, are becoming more sophisticated and resistant to detection. In spite of specific behaviors each botnet has, there exist adequate similarities inside each botnet that separate its behavior from benign traffic. Several botnet detection systems have been proposed based on these similarities. However, offering a solution for differentiating botnet traffic (even those using same protocol, e.g. IRC) from normal traffic is not trivial. Extraction of features in either host or network level to model a botnet has been one of the most popular methods in botnet detection. A subset of features, usually selected based on some intuitive understanding of botnets, is used by the machine learning algorithms to classify/ cluster botnet traffic. These approaches, tested against two or three botnet traces, have mostly showed satisfactory detection results. Even though, their effectiveness in detection of other botnets or real traffic remains in doubt. Additionally, effectiveness of different combination of features in terms of providing more detection coverage has not been fully studied. In this paper we revisit flow-based features employed in the existing botnet detection studies and evaluate their relative effectiveness. To ensure a proper evaluation we create a dataset containing a diverse set of botnet traces and background traffic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".