Network Traffic Behavioral Analytics for Detection of DDoS Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As more organizations and businesses in different sectors are moving to a digital transformation, there is a steady increase in malware, facing data theft or service interruptions caused by cyberattacks on network or application that impact their customer experience. Bot and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks consistently challenge every industry relying on the internet. In this paper, we focus on Machine Learning techniques to detect DDoS attack in network communication flows using continuous learning algorithm that learns the normal pattern of network traffic, behavior of the network protocols and identify a compromised network flow. Detection of DDoS attack will help the network administrators to take immediate action and mitigate the impact of such attacks. DDoS attacks are costing enterprises anywhere between $50,000 to $2.3 million per year. We performed experiments with Intrusion Detection Evaluation Dataset (CICIDS2017) available from Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity to detect anomalies in network traffic. We use flow based traffic characteristics to analyze the difference in pattern between normal vs anomaly packet.We evaluate several supervised classification algorithms using metrics like maximum detection accuracy, lowest false negatives prediction, time taken to train and run. We prove that decision tree based Random Forest is the most promising algorithm whereas Dense Neural network performs equally well on certain DDoS types but require more samples to improve the accuracy of low sampled 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".