Evaluation DDoS Attack Detection Through the Application of Machine Learning Techniques on the CICIDS2017 Dataset in the Field of Information Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amongst network and Intrusion Detection System (IDS) threats, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks often take precedence due to their significant potential to disrupt services, leading to financial and reputational damages for organizations.This study employs eight advanced machine learning techniques to distinguish between two types of DDoS attacks: DoS Hulk and DoS Slow HTTP Test.The applied algorithms include Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), AdaBoost, Naive Bayes (NB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Ridge regression, and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP).Utilizing a Python environment, these methods were applied to the DDoS attacks in the CICIDS2017 dataset for classification into benign or DoS categories across two distinct experiments.The results were highly encouraging: The first experiment achieved an accuracy rate exceeding 99%, while the second experiment achieved a perfect success rate of 100%.These findings outperform those of previous studies in terms of their efficiency, demonstrating the potential of these machine learning techniques in enhancing DDoS attack detection.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".