MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-organizing feature maps for User-to-Root and Remote-to-Local network intrusion detection on the KDD Cup 1999 dataset

2011· article· en· W2152471185 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan J. Wilson, Charlie Obimbo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemDenial-of-service attackFalse positive paradoxCompetition (biology)Computer securityTask (project management)Service (business)Root (linguistics)Feature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningWorld Wide WebThe InternetEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of network intrusion detection is one that is ever-changing, ever-evolving, and is always in need of improvement. Society-at-large relies on computer networks everyday for tasks ranging from online banking to e-commerce, social networking, news, gambling, and just about anything else. As such, society demands that these networks remain secure. In order to maintain security the systems used to protect these networks, which are vital to the 21st century world, must be constantly updated. The task of creating a system for the 21st century fell upon several groups for the ACM 1999 KDD Cup Competition. The competition produced a winning entry, but something was lacking: The winning team's results for two of the intrusion types, User-to-Root and Remote-to-Local, were subpar at best. The winning team produced a 13.8% and 8.4% detection rate for these types respectively, compared to over 90% for each of the Denial of Service and Probing intrusion types. This research aimed to rectify this shortcoming. By implementing an unsupervised learning system, this research has produced a system that correctly detects 62.8% of User-to-Root attacks within the same dataset, with minimal false positives, while maintaining the high detection rates of Denial of Service and Probing attacks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207