MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis on Network Traffic Features for Designing Machine Learning based IDS

2021· article· en· W3194033356 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nannapat Meemongkolkiat, Vasin Suttichaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemRandom forestFalse positive rateClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningNetwork securityIntrusionConfidentialityData miningTraffic classificationSet (abstract data type)Test setComputer securityNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An intrusion detection system (IDS) is the most important technology for securing network systems. It can dynamically monitor network traffic for malicious activities that are aimed to violate confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, and availability of the network. Currently, several Machine Learning (ML) techniques are used to design and implement IDS since ML techniques can capture the complex nature of cyberattacks. However, network traffic information usually contains unimportant features that can deteriorate the efficacy of ML-based IDS. This research analyses the critical features in network traffic to be used for design/implementing the effective ML-based IDS. The selected features are applied to different ML methods to test the effectiveness. This research is conducted on the CICIDS2017 dataset generated by the Canadian Institute of Cybersecurity, using 30 percent of the full datasets and 100 percent of the Wednesday set. The best result achieved for 30 percent of the full set is by using 30 chosen features with the Bagging ensemble classifier giving the accuracy of 99.9 percent with the false-positive rate as low as 0.03 percent. The best result achieved for Wednesday set is by using the Random Forest Classifier which achieves an accuracy of 99.9 percent and a false-positive rate (FPR) of 0.02 percent.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207