From zero-shot machine learning to zero-day attack detection

被引:32
作者
Sarhan, Mohanad [1 ]
Layeghy, Siamak [1 ]
Gallagher, Marcus [1 ]
Portmann, Marius [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
关键词
Machine learning; Network Intrusion Detection System; Wasserstein Distance; Zero-day attacks; Zero-shot learning;
D O I
10.1007/s10207-023-00676-0
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Machine learning (ML) models have proved efficient in classifying data samples into their respective categories. The standard ML evaluation methodology assumes that test data samples are derived from pre-observed classes used in the training phase. However, in applications such as Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDSs), obtaining data samples of all attack classes to be observed is challenging. ML-based NIDSs face new attack traffic known as zero-day attacks that are not used in training due to their non-existence at the time. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel zero-shot learning methodology to evaluate the performance of ML-based NIDSs in recognising zero-day attack scenarios. In the attribute learning stage, the learning models map network data features to semantic attributes that distinguish between known attacks and benign behaviour. In the inference stage, the models construct the relationships between known and zero-day attacks to detect them as malicious. A new evaluation metric is defined as Zero-day Detection Rate (Z-DR) to measure the effectiveness of the learning model in detecting unknown attacks. The proposed framework is evaluated using two key ML models and two modern NIDS data sets. The results demonstrate that for certain zero-day attack groups discovered in this paper, ML-based NIDSs are ineffective in detecting them as malicious. Further analysis shows that attacks with a low Z-DR have a significantly distinct feature distribution and a higher Wasserstein Distance range than the other attack classes.
引用
收藏
页码:947 / 959
页数:13
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
Agarap A.F., 2019, DEEP LEARNING USING
[2]  
Alrashdi I, 2019, 2019 IEEE 9TH ANNUAL COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP AND CONFERENCE (CCWC), P305, DOI 10.1109/CCWC.2019.8666450
[3]  
Apruzzese G, 2018, INT CONF CYBER CONFL, P371, DOI 10.23919/CYCON.2018.8405026
[4]  
Bilge Leyla., 2012, Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security -- CCS'12, P833, DOI DOI 10.1145/2382196.2382284
[5]   Disruptive Innovations and Disruptive Assurance: Assuring Machine Learning and Autonomy [J].
Bloomfield, Robin ;
Khlaaf, Heidy ;
Conmy, Philippa Ryan ;
Fletcher, Gareth .
COMPUTER, 2019, 52 (09) :82-89
[6]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[7]   Technical note: Some properties of splitting criteria [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 1996, 24 (01) :41-47
[8]   A Survey of Data Mining and Machine Learning Methods for Cyber Security Intrusion Detection [J].
Buczak, Anna L. ;
Guven, Erhan .
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS AND TUTORIALS, 2016, 18 (02) :1153-1176
[9]   Unsupervised Network Intrusion Detection Systems: Detecting the Unknown without Knowledge [J].
Casas, Pedro ;
Mazel, Johan ;
Owezarski, Philippe .
COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS, 2012, 35 (07) :772-783
[10]   Neural visualization of network traffic data for intrusion detection [J].
Corchado, Emilio ;
Herrero, Alvaro .
APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2011, 11 (02) :2042-2056