Botnet behaviour analysis: How would a data analytics‐based system with minimum a priori information perform?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Botnets, as one of the most aggressive threats, has used different techniques, topologies, and communication protocols in different stages of their lifecycle since 2003. Hence, identifying botnets has become very challenging specifically given that they can upgrade their methodology at any time. Various detection approaches have been proposed by the cyber‐security researchers, focusing on different aspects of these threats. In this work, 5 different botnet detection approaches are investigated. These systems are selected based on the technique used and type of data used where 2 are public rule–based systems (BotHunter and Snort) and the other 3 use machine learning algorithm with different feature extraction methods (packet payload based and traffic flow based). On the other hand, 4 of these systems are based on a priori knowledge while one is using minimum a priori information. The objective in this analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches under different scenarios (eg, multi‐botnet and single‐botnet classifications) as well as exploring how a system with minimum a priori information would perform. The goal is to investigate if a system with minimum a priori information could result in a competitive performance compared to systems using a priori knowledge. The evaluation is shown on 24 publicly available botnet data sets. Results indicate that a machine learning–based system with minimum a priori information not only achieves a very high performance but also generalizes much better than the other systems evaluated on a wide range of botnet structures (from centralized to decentralized botnets).
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".