Overview and Exploratory Analyses of CICIDS 2017 Intrusion Detection Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrusion detection systems are used to detect attacks on a network. Machine learning (ML) approaches have been widely used to build such intrusion detection systems (IDSs) because they are more accurate when built from a very large and representative dataset. Recently, one of the benchmark datasets that are used to build ML-based intrusion detection models is the CICIDS2017 dataset. The data set is contained in eight groups and was collected from the Data Set & Repository of the Canadian Institute of Cyber Security. The data set is available in both PCAP and net flow formats. This study used the net flow records in the CIDIDS2017 dataset, as they were found to contain newer attacks, very large, and useful for traffic analysis. Exploratory data analysis (EDA) techniques were used to reveal various characteristics of the dataset. The general objective is to provide more insight into the nature, structure, and issues of the data set so as to identify the best ways to use it to achieve improved ML-based IDS models. Furthermore, some of the open problems that can arise from the use of the dataset in any machine learning-based intrusion detection systems are highlighted and possible solutions are briefly discussed. The EDA techniques used revealed important relationships between the input variables and the target class. The study concluded that the EDA can better influence the decision about future IDS research using the dataset.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".