Deep Learning for Cyberattack Detection: A Comparative Analysis of Deep Neural Network (DNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the growing accessibility of technology improves usability, it also creates more opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities, significantly accelerating the proliferation of cybersecurity attacks. Deep learning (DL) approaches present significant advancements over conventional machine learning (ML) techniques by automating feature selection and extraction while minimizing external dependencies. This study proposes a deep learning-based model to enhance cyberattack detection and ensure that data security goals are achieved. This study employs a quantitative research design, utilizing simulation and modeling as the primary analytical tools. The dataset used is the Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity Intrusion Detection System (CIC-IDS-2017) dataset. Three distinct DL algorithms are used to design the detection models, namely, Deep Neural Network (DNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN). The performance comparison metrics are F1-score, accuracy, sensitivity, false positive rate (FPR), specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), false negative rate (FNR), and negative predictive value (NPV). Optimization concepts are integrated to enhance the detection efficiency in web-based systems, including loss functions, gradient-based optimization, and efficient model generalization techniques. The results of k-fold cross-validation show LSTM’s higher scores for F1-score (94.6%), recall (94.7%), accuracy (94.8%), and precision (94.6%). LSTM outperformed RNN and DNN, achieving the highest accuracy, precision, specificity, and sensitivity at 94.7%, 94.3%, 98.9%, and 94.7% respectively, validating LSTM's superior generalizability for cyberattack detection tasks.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".