MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323545679 · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110173

A gradient-based approach for adversarial attack on deep learning-based network intrusion detection systems

2023· article· en· W4323545679 on OpenAlexaff
Hesamodin Mohammadian, Ali A. Ghorbani, Arash Habibi Lashkari

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Soft Computing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceIntrusion detection systemDeep learningMachine learningTransferabilityArtificial neural networkDeep neural networksJacobian matrix and determinantData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrusion detection systems are an essential part of any cybersecurity architecture. These systems are critical in defending networks against a variety of security threats. In recent years, deep neural networks have proved their performance and efficiency in various machine learning tasks, including intrusion detection . However, it is shown that deep learning models are highly vulnerable to adversarial attacks . This paper proposes a new approach for performing an adversarial attack against deep learning-based malicious network activity classification . We use the Jacobian Saliency Map to find the best group of features, with different features and perturbation magnitude, to generate adversarial examples . We evaluate our method on three CIC-IDS2017, CIC-IDS2018, and CIC-DDoS2019 datasets. Our experiments show that our proposed method can achieve better performance while using fewer features in adversarial sample generation than other attacks that depend on a higher number of features. Our technique can generate adversarial samples for more than 18% of samples in CIC-IDS2017, 15% of samples in CIC-IDS2018, and 14% of samples in CIC-DDoS2019, using only three features and 0.1 as the perturbation magnitude. We do a deeper analysis of the attack based on its parameters, distance metrics, and the target model performance. Also, an evaluation model with three criteria, including success rates of the best feature sets, average confidence of the adversarial class, and adversarial samples transferability, is used in our analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations83
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Soft ComputingSame topicAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFrench-language works237,207