MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early Detection of Intrusion in SDN

2023· article· en· W4381744899 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Shamim Towhid, Nashid Shahriar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrusion detection systemComputer scienceNetwork packetAnomaly-based intrusion detection systemIntrusionHost-based intrusion detection systemComputer networkSoftware-defined networkingData miningIntrusion prevention system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intrusion detection system (IDS) is an essential component of any modern network. The purpose of an IDS is to detect intrusion and generate appropriate alarms so that the intrusion can be mitigated. Implementing an IDS in a Software Defined Network (SDN) is easier since an SDN controller has a centralized view of the whole network. Researchers have made many efforts to use machine learning (ML) for developing network-based IDS in SDN. The network-based IDS analyzes different characteristics of incoming network traffic to detect intrusion. Early detection of intrusion is crucial for an IDS because if the intrusion is not detected quickly enough, it can cause severe damage, such as data breaches and service shutdowns. This paper focuses on detecting intrusion in SDN as early as possible using real-time flow-based features. Our aim is to detect intrusion with less amount of packets per flow, which not only facilitates early intrusion detection but also is useful when an intrusion flow has less number of packets. We show that although ML models perform well in offline training on a dataset, their performance decreases ~25% when fewer packets are used to generate features for the ML model. In all our experiments, a simple Random Forest (RF) algorithm outperforms a complex deep learning model on a publicly available dataset for intrusion detection in SDN.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207