Diagnosing Unknown Attacks in Smart Homes Using Abductive Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Security attacks are rising, as evidenced by the number of reported vulnerabilities. Among them, unknown attacks, including new variants of existing attacks, technical blind spots or previously undiscovered attacks, challenge enduring security. This is due to the limited number of techniques that diagnose these attacks and enable the selection of adequate security controls. In this paper, we propose an automated technique that detects and diagnoses unknown attacks by identifying the class of attack and the violated security requirements, enabling the selection of adequate security controls. Our technique combines anomaly detection to detect unknown attacks with abductive reasoning to diagnose them. We first model the behaviour of the smart home and its requirements as a logic program in Answer Set Programming (ASP). We then apply Z-Score thresholding to the anomaly scores of an Isolation Forest trained using unlabeled data to simulate unknown attack scenarios. Finally, we encode the network anomaly in the logic program and perform abduction by refutation to identify the class of attack and the security requirements that this anomaly may violate. We demonstrate our technique using a smart home scenario, where we detect and diagnose anomalies in network traffic.We evaluate the precision, recall and F1-score of the anomaly detector and the diagnosis technique against 18 attacks from the ground truth labels provided by two datasets, CICIoT2023 and IoT-23. Our experiments show that the anomaly detector effectively identifies anomalies when the network traces are strong indicators of an attack. When provided with sufficient contextual data, the diagnosis logic effectively identifies true anomalies, and reduces the number of false positives reported by anomaly detectors. Finally, we discuss how our technique can support the selection of adequate security controls.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".