Machine learning-based intrusion detection system for detecting web attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".