MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387373041 · doi:10.3390/electronics12194142

Predicting DDoS Attacks Using Machine Learning Algorithms in Building Management Systems

2023· article· en· W4387373041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
İsa Avcı, Murat Koca

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenial-of-service attackComputer scienceSupport vector machineMachine learningArtificial intelligenceBotnetArtificial neural networkComputer securityVulnerability (computing)Internet of ThingsAlgorithmThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) in smart buildings necessitates the continuous evaluation of potential threats and their implications. Conventional methods are increasingly inadequate in measuring risk and mitigating associated hazards, necessitating the development of innovative approaches. Cybersecurity systems for IoT are critical not only in Building Management System (BMS) applications but also in various aspects of daily life. Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks targeting core BMS software, particularly those launched by botnets, pose significant risks to assets and safety. In this paper, we propose a novel algorithm that combines the power of the Slime Mould Optimization Algorithm (SMOA) for feature selection with an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) predictor and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm. Our enhanced algorithm achieves an outstanding accuracy of 97.44% in estimating DDoS attack risk factors in the context of BMS. Additionally, it showcases a remarkable 99.19% accuracy in predicting DDoS attacks, effectively preventing system disruptions, and managing cyber threats. To further validate our work, we perform a comparative analysis using the K-Nearest Neighbor Classifier (KNN), which yields an accuracy rate of 96.46%. Our model is trained on the Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity (CIC) IoT Dataset 2022, enabling behavioral analysis and vulnerability testing on diverse IoT devices utilizing various protocols, such as IEEE 802.11, Zigbee-based, and Z-Wave.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207