MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Data Mining Framework to Predict Cyber Attack for Cyber Security

2020· article· en· W3042080190 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anisur Rahman, Yeslam Al‐Saggaf, Tanveer Zia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityCyber-attackCyber threats

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyber-attacks are exponentially increasing daily with the advancements of technology. Therefore, the detection and prediction of cyber-attacks are very important for every organization that is dealing with sensitive data for business purposes. In this paper, we present a framework on cyber security using a data mining technique to predict cyber-attacks that can be helpful to take proper interventions to reduce the cyber-attacks. The two main components of the framework are the detection and prediction of cyber-attacks. The framework first extracts the patterns related to cyber-attacks from historical data using a J48 decision tree algorithm and then builds a prediction model to predict the future cyber-attacks. We then apply the framework on publicly available cyber security datasets provided by the Canadian Institute of Cybersecurity. In the datasets, several kinds of cyber-attacks are presented including DDoS, Port Scan, Bot, Brute force, SQL Injection, and Heartbleed. The proposed framework correctly detects the cyber-attacks and provides the patterns related to cyber-attacks. The overall accuracy of the proposed prediction model to detect cyber-attacks is around 99%. The extracted patterns of the prediction model on historical data can be applied to predict any future cyber-attacks. The experimental results of the prediction model indicate the superiority of the model to detect any future cyber-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)0.000
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 score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207