Machine learning-based intrusion detection system for detecting web attacks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The increasing use of smart devices results in a huge amount of data, which raises concerns about personal data, including health data and financial data. This data circulates on the network and can encounter network traffic at any time. This traffic can either be normal traffic or an intrusion created by hackers with the aim of injecting abnormal traffic into the network. Firewalls and traditional intrusion detection systems detect attacks based on signature patterns. However, this is not sufficient to detect advanced or unknown attacks. To detect different types of unknown attacks, the use of intelligent techniques is essential. In this paper, we analyse some machine learning techniques proposed in recent years. In this study, several classifications were made to detect anomalous behaviour in network traffic. The models were built and evaluated based on the Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity-intrusion detection systems dataset released in 2017 (CIC-IDS-2017), which includes both current and historical attacks. The experiments were conducted using decision tree, random forest, logistic regression, gaussian naïve bayes, adaptive boosting, and their ensemble approach. The models were evaluated using various evaluation metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, false positive rate, receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration curve.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it