Detection and Characterization of DDoS Attacks Using Time-Based Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s evolving cybersecurity landscape, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks have become one of the most prolific and costly threats. Their capability to incapacitate network services while causing millions of dollars in damages has made effective DDoS detection and prevention imperative for businesses and government entities alike. Prior research has found shallow and deep learning classifiers to be invaluable in detecting DDoS attacks; however, there is an absence of research concerning time-based features and classification among many DDoS attack types. In this article, we propose and study the efficacy of 25 time-based features to detect and classify 12 types of DDoS attacks using binary and multiclass classification. Furthermore, we ran experiments to compare the performance of eight traditional machine learning classifiers and one deep learning classifier using two different scenarios. Our findings show that the majority of models provided ~99% accuracy on both the control and time-based experiments in detecting DDoS attacks while yielding ~70% accuracy in classifying specific DDoS attack types. Training on the proposed time-based feature subset was found to be effective at reducing training time without compromising test accuracy; thus, the smaller time-based feature subset alone is beneficial for near-real time applications that incorporate continuous learning.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".