An empirical assessment of ensemble methods and traditional machine for web-based attack detection in 5.0

被引:22
作者
Chakir, Oumaima [1 ]
Rehaimi, Abdeslam [1 ]
Sadqi, Yassine [1 ]
Alaoui, El Arbi Abdellaoui [2 ]
Krichen, Moez [3 ,4 ]
Gaba, Gurjot Singh [5 ]
Gurtov, Andrei [5 ]
机构
[1] USMS Univ, FPBM, Lab LIMATI, Beni Mellal, Morocco
[2] Univ Moulay Ismail, Dept Sci, IMAGE Lab, ENS,IEVIA Team, Meknes, Morocco
[3] Al Baha Univ, Fac CSIT, Al Bahah, Saudi Arabia
[4] Univ Sfax, ReDCAD Lab, Sfax, Tunisia
[5] Linkoping Univ, Sch Comp & Informat Sci, Linkoping, Sweden
关键词
Cybersecurity; Ensemble methods; Industry; 5; 0; Machine learning; Web-based attack detection; INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS; PROTOCOL;
D O I
10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.02.009
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Cybersecurity attacks that target software have become profitable and popular targets for cybercriminals who consciously take advantage of web-based vulnerabilities and execute attacks that might jeopardize essential industry 5.0 features. Several machine learning-based techniques have been developed in the literature to identify these types of assaults. In contrast to single classifiers, ensemble methods have not been evaluated empirically. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first empirical evaluation of both homogeneous and heterogeneous ensemble approaches compared to single classifiers for web -based attack detection in industry 5.0, utilizing two of the most realistic public web-based attack data -sets. The authors divided the experiment into three main phases: In the first phase, they evaluated the performance of five well-established supervised machine learning (ML) classifiers. In the second phase, they constructed a heterogeneous ensemble of the three best-performing ML algorithms using max vot-ing and stacking methods. In the third phase, they used four well-known homogeneous ensembles to evaluate the performance of the bagging and boosting method. The results based on the ECML/PKDD 2007 and CSIC HTTP 2010 datasets revealed that bagging, particularly Random Forest, outperformed sin-gle classifiers in terms of accuracy, precision, F-value, FPR, and area of the ROC curve with values of 99.597%, 98.274%, 99.129%, 0.523%, 100 and 99.867%, 99.867%, 99.867%, 0.267%, 100, respectively. In con-trast, single classifiers performed better than boosting and stacking. However, in terms of FPR, the boost-ing exceeded single classifiers. Max voting is appropriate when accuracy, precision, and FPR are the primary concerns, whereas single classifiers can be employed when recall, FNR, training, and prediction times are critical elements. In terms of training time, ensemble approaches are more likely to be affected by data volume than single classifiers. The paper's findings will help security researchers and practition-ers identify the most efficient learning techniques for securing web applications. (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 119
页数:17
相关论文
共 70 条
  • [31] Kumar M, 2012, PROCEEDINGS OF 2012 IEEE 14TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, P629, DOI 10.1109/ICCT.2012.6511281
  • [32] A Secure Data Dissemination Scheme for IoT-Based e-Health Systems using AI and Blockchain
    Kumar, Prabhat
    Kumar, Randhir
    Garg, Sahil
    Kaur, Kuljeet
    Zhang, Yin
    Guizani, Mohsen
    [J]. 2022 IEEE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE (GLOBECOM 2022), 2022, : 1397 - 1403
  • [33] Kumar Randhir, 2022, DroneCom '22: Proceedings of the 5th International ACM Mobicom Workshop on Drone Assisted Wireless Communications for 5G and Beyond, P37, DOI 10.1145/3555661.3560861
  • [34] Kumar R., 2022, 2021 IFIPIEEE INT S, DOI [10.1109/MCOM.001.2200294, DOI 10.1109/MCOM.001.2200294]
  • [35] Adversarial XAI Methods in Cybersecurity
    Kuppa, Aditya
    Nhien-An Le-Khac
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION FORENSICS AND SECURITY, 2021, 16 : 4924 - 4938
  • [36] Industry 5.0: Prospect and retrospect
    Leng, Jiewu
    Sha, Weinan
    Wang, Baicun
    Zheng, Pai
    Zhuang, Cunbo
    Liu, Qiang
    Wuest, Thorsten
    Mourtzis, Dimitris
    Wang, Lihui
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS, 2022, 65 : 279 - 295
  • [37] Intrusion detection system: A comprehensive review
    Liao, Hung-Jen
    Lin, Chun-Hung Richard
    Lin, Ying-Chih
    Tung, Kuang-Yuan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NETWORK AND COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, 2013, 36 (01) : 16 - 24
  • [38] Lower N, 2020, 2020 10TH ANNUAL COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP AND CONFERENCE (CCWC), P1001, DOI [10.1109/ccwc47524.2020.9031256, 10.1109/CCWC47524.2020.9031256]
  • [39] A Novel Web Attack Detection System for Internet of Things via Ensemble Classification
    Luo, Chaochao
    Tan, Zhiyuan
    Min, Geyong
    Gan, Jie
    Shi, Wei
    Tian, Zhihong
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, 2021, 17 (08) : 5810 - 5818
  • [40] Industry 5.0: A survey on enabling technologies and potential applications
    Maddikunta, Praveen Kumar Reddy
    Quoc-Viet Pham
    Prabadevi
    Deepa, N.
    Dev, Kapal
    Gadekallu, Thippa Reddy
    Ruby, Rukhsana
    Liyanage, Madhusanka
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION INTEGRATION, 2022, 26