Submitted:
23 August 2023
Posted:
24 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Geometric SMOTE (G-SMOTE) enhances the linear interpolation mechanism by introducing geometric transformations in the feature space, allowing for a better approximation of the distribution of minority class samples. The G-SMOTE algorithm is applied to the intrusion detection field, and the Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) algorithm is adopted to improve the G-SMOTE algorithm to handle imbalanced processing in high-dimensional and imbalanced IoT traffic.
- A feature extraction module -Multi-Noise and Attention Mechanism-based Denoising Autoencoder (MDSAE) is proposed to extract deep feature representations of high-dimensional IoT data, thereby enhancing the robustness of the data after dimensionality reduction.
- The integration of three modules, KGSMOTE, MDSAE, and Soft Voting Ensemble Model (SVEDM), for multi-category anomaly detection of IoT traffic effectively improves the overall detection rate of the IDS. The ablation experiments show that these modules are interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and the detection performance of the multi-module IDS is better than that of the single-module intrusion detection model. The comparison experiments show that KGMS-IDS has higher overall detection rate and lower false alarm rate compared with other intrusion detection methods.
2. Related Work
3. Method
3.1. Model Structure
- Data pre-processing module: The training and test sets are input into the data pre-processing module, and the data are cleaned and transformed to form clean data for model training. Firstly, the data are processed by missing values and outliers, and the irregular data in the original data such as the rows containing None, NaN, inf and nan in the numerical feature columns are removed. Secondly, the MinMaxScaler method is used to normalize the cleaned data and limit the pre-processed data to [0,1]. Finally, the one-hot method is used to transform the discrete features in the data into a vector group of 0,1 combinations. The data after the data pre-processing module is input to the next imbalance processing module for imbalance processing.
- Imbalance processing module: The imbalance processing module is mainly based on random downsampling algorithm and KGSMOTE algorithm. The training set in the data after pre-processing is taken out, and the training set isinput into the imbalance processing module based on KGSMOTE. The majority class traffic in the dataset is first randomly downsampled, and then the rare class attack data is generated by the KGSMOE algorithm. It should be noted that the KGSMOTE model only does imbalance processing on the training set to meet the requirements of an IDS deployed in a real IoT environment. The data after the imbalance processing module is input to the feature downsampling module for feature downsampling.
- Feature reduction module: Input the training data processed by the imbalance processing module into the MDSAE-based feature reduction module to train the MDSAE model. The encoder part of the trained MDSAE model is taken out and the trained parameters are kept. The trained encoder is then used to perform feature downscaling on the training and test sets of the IoT dataset respectively. The dimensionality reduction removes the redundant information from the original high-dimensional data and improves the robustness of the data. The processed data from the feature dimensionality reduction module is input to the classification module to detect multi-class anomalous attacks.
- Classification module: First, the SVEDM-based classification module is trained using the training dataset processed by the dimensionality reduction module. Then the test dataset are input to the trained classification module for multi-classification anomaly detection, and the final detection results are obtained.
3.2. Imbalanced Data Processing Module Based on KGSmote
| Algorithm 1: Oversampling algorithm of KDE-based G-SMOTE |
| Input:Rare class attack data R={r1,r2,r3,...,rn} |
| Output:Augmented rare class attack data |
| 1:Use KDE to estimate density distribution of rare class attack data density = kernel_density_estimation(rare_class_attack_data, h) |
| 2:Generate new rare class attack data based on the estimated density distribution new_rare_class_attack_data = generate_data_from_density(density) |
| 3:Combine new rare class attack data with original training data training_data = combine(original_training_data, new_rare_class_attack_data) |
| 4:Use G-SMOTE to perform oversampling on the augmented rare class attack data oversampled_data = G_Smote(training_data) |
| 5:Return oversampled_data |
| 6:End |
3.3. Feature Dimension Reduction Module Based on MDSAE
3.4. A Multi-Class Anomaly Detection Module Based on SVEDM
3.5. Dataset Description
3.5.1. NSL-KDD
3.5.2. N-BaIoT
4. Experimental Results and Analysis
4.1. Evaluation Metrics
4.2. Imbalanced Processing Based on KGSMOTE
4.3. Deep Feature Extraction Based on MDSAE
4.4. Intrusion Detection Based on SVEDM
4.5. Performance Evaluation and Ablation Study of the Proposed Model
- Only SVEDM: The intrusion detection system will solely use the SVEDM module to only evaluate the classification performance of this module.
- w/o KGSMOTE: The KGSMOTE module is excluded from KGMS-IDS, while retaining the MDSAE and SVEDM modules, to assess the feature extraction capability of MDSAE.
- w/o MDSAE: The MDSAE module is removed from KGMS-IDS to examine the imbalance handling ability of the KGSMOTE module for high-dimensional data.
5. Conclusion and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ruzafa-Alcázar, P.; Fernández-Saura, P.; Mármol-Campos, E.; González-Vidal, A.; Hernández-Ramos, J.L.; Bernal-Bernabe, J.; Skarmeta, A.F. Intrusion detection based on privacy-preserving federated learning for the industrial IoT. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2021, 19, 1145–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryalat, M.; ElMoaqet, H.; AlFaouri, M. Design of a smart factory based on cyber-physical systems and internet of things towards industry 4.0. Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, S.; Khan, M.A.; El-Sayed, H.; Khan, J.; Ullah, O. How do autonomous vehicles decide? Sensors 2022, 23, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alfouzan, F.A.; Kim, K.; Alzahrani, N.M. An efficient framework for securing the smart city communication networks. Sensors 2022, 22, 3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Awotunde, J.B.; Folorunso, S.O.; Imoize, A.L.; Odunuga, J.O.; Lee, C.C.; Li, C.T.; Do, D.T. An Ensemble Tree-Based Model for Intrusion Detection in Industrial Internet of Things Networks. Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massaro, A. Advanced Electronic and Optoelectronic Sensors, Applications, Modelling and Industry 5.0 Perspectives. Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 4582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arisdakessian, S.; Wahab, O.A.; Mourad, A.; Otrok, H.; Guizani, M. A survey on iot intrusion detection: Federated learning, game theory, social psychology and explainable ai as future directions. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alani, M.M.; Awad, A.I. An Intelligent Two-Layer Intrusion Detection System for the Internet of Things. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2022, 19, 683–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laghrissi, F.; Douzi, S.; Douzi, K.; Hssina, B. Intrusion detection systems using long short-term memory (LSTM). Journal of Big Data 2021, 8, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahdavi, E.; Fanian, A.; Mirzaei, A.; Taghiyarrenani, Z. ITL-IDS: Incremental Transfer Learning for Intrusion Detection Systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 2022, 253, 109542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Moubayed, A.; Shami, A. MTH-IDS: A multitiered hybrid intrusion detection system for internet of vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2021, 9, 616–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Dong, X.; Li, C.; Zhang, Z. HyIDSVis: hybrid intrusion detection visualization analysis based on rare category and association rules. Journal of Visualization 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erlacher, F.; Dressler, F. On high-speed flow-based intrusion detection using snort-compatible signatures. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 2020, 19, 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Jia, D.; Wang, L.; Wang, W.; Liu, F.; Yang, A. Comparative research on network intrusion detection methods based on machine learning. Computers & Security 2022, 102861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apruzzese, G.; Pajola, L.; Conti, M. The cross-evaluation of machine learning-based network intrusion detection systems. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Antypenko, R.; Sushko, I.; Zakharchenko, O. Intrusion Detection System After Data Augmentation Schemes Based on the VAE and CVAE. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2022, 71, 1000–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Telikani, A.; Shen, J.; Yang, J.; Wang, P. Industrial IoT intrusion detection via evolutionary cost-sensitive learning and fog computing. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2022, 9, 23260–23271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayalaxmi, P.; Saha, R.; Kumar, G.; Conti, M.; Kim, T.H. Machine and Deep Learning Solutions for Intrusion Detection and Prevention in IoTs: A Survey. IEEE Access 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehmood, M.; Javed, T.; Nebhen, J.; Abbas, S.; Abid, R.; Bojja, G.R.; Rizwan, M. A hybrid approach for network intrusion detection. CMC-Comput. Mater. Contin 2022, 70, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammad, M.; Hewahi, N.; Elmedany, W. MMM-RF: A novel high accuracy multinomial mixture model for network intrusion detection systems. Computers & Security 2022, 120, 102777. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, J.; Wang, H.; Garibaldi, J.M.; Wu, D. Network Intrusion Detection Based on Dynamic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 2021, 30, 3460–3472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prajisha, C.; Vasudevan, A. An efficient intrusion detection system for MQTT-IoT using enhanced chaotic salp swarm algorithm and LightGBM. International Journal of Information Security 2022, 21, 1263–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.; Kumar, P.; Tripathi, R.; Gupta, G.P.; Garg, S.; Hassan, M.M. A distributed intrusion detection system to detect DDoS attacks in blockchain-enabled IoT network. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 2022, 164, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.A.; Iqbal, N.; Jamil, H.; Kim, D.H.; et al. An optimized ensemble prediction model using AutoML based on soft voting classifier for network intrusion detection. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 2023, 212, 103560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albashish, D.; Aburomman, A. Weighted heterogeneous ensemble for the classification of intrusion detection using ant colony optimization for continuous search spaces. Soft Computing 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunang, Y.N.; Nurmaini, S.; Stiawan, D.; Suprapto, B.Y. Attack classification of an intrusion detection system using deep learning and hyperparameter optimization. Journal of Information Security and Applications 2021, 58, 102804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, Z.; Qiao, L.; Li, J.; Song, H. Deep-learning-enabled security issues in the internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2020, 8, 9531–9538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, Q. On IoT intrusion detection based on data augmentation for enhancing learning on unbalanced samples. Future Generation Computer Systems 2022, 133, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andresini, G.; Appice, A.; De Rose, L.; Malerba, D. GAN augmentation to deal with imbalance in imaging-based intrusion detection. Future Generation Computer Systems 2021, 123, 108–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, V.; Sinha, D. Synthetic attack data generation model applying generative adversarial network for intrusion detection. Computers & Security 2023, 125, 103054. [Google Scholar]
- Talukder, M.A.; Hasan, K.F.; Islam, M.M.; Uddin, M.A.; Akhter, A.; Yousuf, M.A.; Alharbi, F.; Moni, M.A. A dependable hybrid machine learning model for network intrusion detection. Journal of Information Security and Applications 2023, 72, 103405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balla, A.; Habaebi, M.H.; Elsheikh, E.A.; Islam, M.R.; Suliman, F. The Effect of Dataset Imbalance on the Performance of SCADA Intrusion Detection Systems. Sensors 2023, 23, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lavanya, T.; Rajalakshmi, K. Heterogenous ensemble learning driven multi-parametric assessment model for hardware Trojan detection. Integration 2023, 89, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Gao, Y.; Hu, F. A fast network intrusion detection system using adaptive synthetic oversampling and LightGBM. Computers & Security 2021, 106, 102289. [Google Scholar]
- Douzas, G.; Bacao, F. Geometric SMOTE a geometrically enhanced drop-in replacement for SMOTE. Information Sciences 2019, 501, 118–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamalov, F.; Moussa, S.; Avante Reyes, J. KDE-Based Ensemble Learning for Imbalanced Data. Electronics 2022, 11, 2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boppana, T.K.; Bagade, P. GAN-AE: An unsupervised intrusion detection system for MQTT networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 2023, 119, 105805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mushtaq, E.; Zameer, A.; Umer, M.; Abbasi, A.A. A two-stage intrusion detection system with auto-encoder and LSTMs. Applied Soft Computing 2022, 121, 108768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, I.O.; Zou, D.; Abdulqadder, I.H.; Ruambo, F.A.; Yuan, B.; Jin, H. Effective network intrusion detection via representation learning: A Denoising AutoEncoder approach. Computer Communications 2022, 194, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Chen, S.; Dai, H.; Xu, D.; Chu, C.K.; Xiao, B. Abnormal Traffic Detection: Traffic Feature Extraction and DAE-GAN With Efficient Data Augmentation. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Liu, S.; Chen, J.; Jia, J. Huber loss based distributed robust learning algorithm for random vector functional-link network. Artificial Intelligence Review 2022, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revathi, S.; Malathi, A. A detailed analysis on NSL-KDD dataset using various machine learning techniques for intrusion detection. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) 2013, 2, 1848–1853. [Google Scholar]
- Tavallaee, M.; Bagheri, E.; Lu, W.; Ghorbani, A.A. A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence for security and defense applications. Ieee; 2009; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Meidan, Y.; Bohadana, M.; Mathov, Y.; Mirsky, Y.; Shabtai, A.; Breitenbacher, D.; Elovici, Y. N-baiot—network-based detection of iot botnet attacks using deep autoencoders. IEEE Pervasive Computing 2018, 17, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popoola, S.I.; Ande, R.; Adebisi, B.; Gui, G.; Hammoudeh, M.; Jogunola, O. Federated deep learning for zero-day botnet attack detection in IoT-edge devices. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2021, 9, 3930–3944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Zheng, K.; Wu, C.; Niu, X.; Yang, Y. Building an effective intrusion detection system using the modified density peak clustering algorithm and deep belief networks. Applied Sciences 2019, 9, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Li, J.; Yang, Y.; Shen, F. Toward effective intrusion detection using log-cosh conditional variational autoencoder. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2020, 8, 6187–6196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shams, E.A.; Rizaner, A.; Ulusoy, A.H. A novel context-aware feature extraction method for convolutional neural network-based intrusion detection systems. Neural Computing and Applications 2021, 33, 13647–13665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Kong, K.; Shen, H.; Wei, Z.; Liao, X. Intrusion detection method based on imbalanced learning classification. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2022, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rani, M. Effective network intrusion detection by addressing class imbalance with deep neural networks multimedia tools and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications 2022, 81, 8499–8518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Om Kumar, C.; Marappan, S.; Murugeshan, B.; Beaulah, P.M.R. Intrusion Detection Model for IoT Using Recurrent Kernel Convolutional Neural Network. Wireless Personal Communications 2023, 129, 783–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saurabh, K.; Singh, A.; Singh, U.; Vyas, O.; Khondoker, R. GANIBOT: A Network Flow Based Semi Supervised Generative Adversarial Networks Model for IoT Botnets Detection. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems (COINS). IEEE; 2022; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Abu Al-Haija, Q.; Al-Dala’ien, M. ELBA-IoT: an ensemble learning model for botnet attack detection in IoT networks. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks 2022, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attique, D.; Hao, W.; Ping, W. Fog-Assisted Deep-Learning-Empowered Intrusion Detection System for RPL-Based Resource-Constrained Smart Industries. Sensors 2022, 22, 9416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]



















| Industry 5.0 | Autonomous Driving | Smart City | Smart Factory |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ransomware | Jamming | DDoS | APT |
| Malware | Spoofing | Cyber Espionage | Phishing |
| APT | Disrupting | APT | Malware |
| Phishing | Injecting | IoT device hacking | Social Engineering |
| Methods | Datasets | ML/DL | Ensemble leaning | Unknown attack | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFRFE-FGSVM [19] | NSL-KDD | ML | × | × | 2022 |
| MMM-RF [20] | CSE-CIC-IDS2018 | ML | × | × | 2022 |
| IFSs [21] | KDD 99/NSL-KDD UNSW-NB15 |
ML | × | × | 2021 |
| ECSSA-LightGBM [22] | MC-IoT/MQTTset MQTT-IoT-IDS2020 |
ML | × | × | 2022 |
| RF/XGBoost [23] | BoT-IoT | ML | × | × | 2022 |
| OE-IDS [24] | UNSW-NB15 CIC-IDS2017 |
ML | ✓ | × | 2023 |
| ACOR-WMV [25] | NSL-KDD | Both | ✓ | × | 2022 |
| PTDAE-DNN [26] | NSL-KDD CSE-CIC-ID2018 |
DL | × | × | 2021 |
| SDAE-SVM [27] | NSL-KDD | Both | × | × | 2020 |
| ICVAE-BSM [28] | NSL-KDD/CIC-IDS2017 CSE-CIC-IDS2018 |
Both | × | × | 2022 |
| GAN-CNN [29] | KDDCUP99/UNSW-NB15 CIC-IDS2017/AAGM17 |
DL | × | × | 2021 |
| WCGAN-XGBoost [30] | NSL-KDD/BoT-IoT UNSW-NB15 |
Both | × | × | 2023 |
| Proposed method | NSL-KDD/N-BaIoT | Both | ✓ | ✓ | 2023 |
| Module | Parameter settings | |
| KGSmote | K(x)=Gaussian kernel | |
| bandwidth=0.2 | ||
| truncation_factor=1,sampling_rate=0.8/0.3 | ||
| k_neighbors=5 | ||
| MDSAE | Batch size=1024 | |
| Optimizer=Adam,learning rate=0.001 | ||
| Epoch=50 | ||
| Activation=Relu | ||
| Loss function=Huber Loss | ||
| Hidden layer1=80,Hidden layer2=30 | ||
| SVEDM | XGBoost (weights=0.286) |
max_depth=10 |
| learning_rate=0.4 | ||
| subsample=0.8 | ||
| n_estimators=400 | ||
| RF (weights=0.571) |
n_estimators=100 | |
| max_depth=10 | ||
| C4.5 (weights=0.143) |
n_estimators=100 | |
| max_depth=10 | ||
| Class | KDDTrain+ | Number | KDDTest+ | (Unknow attack) | Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | normal | 67343 | normal | ∖ | 9711 |
| DoS | back,land,neptune, pod,smurf,teardrop |
45927 | back,land,neptune, smurf,teardrop,pod |
apache2,mailbomb, processtable,udpstorm |
7458 |
| Probe | ipsweep,nmap, portsweep,satan |
11656 | ipsweep,nmap, portsweep,satan |
saint, mscan | 2421 |
| R2L | buffer_overflow, loadmodule,perl,rootkit |
995 | buffer_overflow, rootkit,perl, loadmodule |
xterm,sqlattack, ps,httptunnel |
2754 |
| U2R | ftp_write,guess_passw, imap,warezmaster,spy multihop,phf,warezclient |
52 | ftp_write,imap guess_passwd,phf warezmaster,multihop |
snmpgetattack,worm xlock,sendmail, xsnoop,named,snmpguess |
200 |
| Total | 23 | 125973 | 21 | 17 | 22544 |
| Class | N-BaIoT Train | Number | N-BaIoT Test | (Unknow attack) | Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | normal | 34806 | normal | ∖ | 14917 |
| BASHLITE Attack | Scan(BASH),Junk COMBO,UDP(BASH) |
6869 | Scan(BASH),COMBO Junk,UDP(BASH) |
TCP flooding | 5778 |
| Mirai Attack | Ack,Syn,UDPplain | 6051 | Ack,Syn,UDPplain | Scan(Mirai),UDP(Mirai) | 5663 |
| Total | 8 | 47726 | 8 | 3 | 26358 |
| Project | Parameters |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core i7-11800H 2.30GHz |
| GPU | NVIDIA RTX3070 |
| Python version | 3.9.13 |
| TensorFlow version | 2.8.0 |
| Keras version | 2.8.0 |
| Pytorch version | 1.10.1 |
| XGBoost | C4.5 | RF | Adaboost | LightGBM | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✓ | - | ✓ | ✓ | - | 85.41% | 72.79% | 70.46% | 71.30% |
| ✓ | - | ✓ | - | ✓ | 85.31% | 72.61% | 70.61% | 71.30% |
| ✓ | ✓ | - | - | ✓ | 85.11% | 72.48% | 69.36% | 70.52% |
| ✓ | ✓ | - | ✓ | - | 84.95% | 71.28% | 69.18% | 69.82% |
| ✓ | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | 84.56% | 72.65% | 68.83% | 70.23% |
| - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | - | 84.09% | 69.42% | 69.42% | 69.02% |
| - | ✓ | ✓ | - | ✓ | 84.94% | 72.60% | 69.76% | 70.62% |
| - | ✓ | - | ✓ | ✓ | 85.58% | 72.96% | 70.95% | 71.62% |
| - | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 85.30% | 73.33% | 70.37% | 71.38% |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 85.53% | 73.35% | 70.44% | 71.51% |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | 86.39% | 73.62% | 70.22% | 71.49% |
| XGBoost | C4.5 | RF | Adaboost | LightGBM | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✓ | - | ✓ | ✓ | - | 99.79% | 99.69% | 99.69% | 99.69% |
| ✓ | - | ✓ | - | ✓ | 99.86% | 99.80% | 99.80% | 99.80% |
| ✓ | ✓ | - | - | ✓ | 97.75% | 96.90% | 96.52% | 96.54% |
| ✓ | ✓ | - | ✓ | - | 98.74% | 98.19% | 98.06% | 98.07% |
| ✓ | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | 99.55% | 99.34% | 99.32% | 99.32% |
| - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | - | 98.59% | 97.98% | 97.85% | 97.86% |
| - | ✓ | ✓ | - | ✓ | 98.60% | 98.01% | 97.85% | 97.87% |
| - | ✓ | - | ✓ | ✓ | 96.07% | 94.92% | 93.93% | 93.92% |
| - | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 99.68% | 99.53% | 99.52% | 99.52% |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 99.01% | 98.56% | 98.48% | 98.49% |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | 99.94% | 99.92% | 99.92% | 99.92% |
| Method | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | 75.88% | 88.68% | 49.11% | 50.36% |
| C4.5 | 75.62% | 79.03% | 49.68% | 49.48% |
| XGBoost | 75.52% | 68.08% | 46.81% | 48.01% |
| LightGBM | 75.70% | 80.00% | 49.36% | 52.69% |
| CNN | 79.75% | 86.46% | 56.96% | 59.71% |
| CNN-LSTM | 78.14% | 67.27% | 53.52% | 53.10% |
| DAE-SMOTE-DNN | 81.31% | 68.18% | 61.59% | 63.78% |
| Proposed method | 86.39% | 73.62% | 70.22% | 71.49% |
| Method | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | 93.79% | 92.64% | 90.36% | 90.24% |
| C4.5 | 97.28% | 96.20% | 95.85% | 95.84% |
| XGBoost | 90.36% | 89.59% | 85.04% | 84.55% |
| LightGBM | 88.42% | 88.46% | 82.03% | 80.94% |
| CNN | 99.68% | 99.52% | 99.61% | 99.56% |
| CNN-LSTM | 88.13% | 87.77% | 81.71% | 80.34% |
| DAE-SMOTE-DNN | 99.78% | 99.86% | 99.69% | 99.77% |
| Proposed method | 99.94% | 99.92% | 99.92% | 99.92% |
| Method | Module | NSL-KDD | ||||||
| KGSMOTE | MDSAE | SVEDM | Acc | Pre | Re | F1 | ||
| Proposed method | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 86.39 | 73.62 | 70.22 | 71.49 | |
| (1)Only SVEDM | - | - | ✓ | 76.10 | 69.25 | 48.10 | 48.90 | |
| (2)w/o KGSMOTE | - | ✓ | ✓ | 79.19 | 80.25 | 55.86 | 56.98 | |
| (3)w/o MDSAE | ✓ | - | ✓ | 80.50 | 73.29 | 58.22 | 61.75 | |
| Method | Module | N-BaIoT | ||||||
| KGSMOTE | MDSAE | SVEDM | Acc | Pre | Re | F1 | ||
| Proposed method | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 99.94 | 99.92 | 99.92 | 99.92 | |
| (1)Only SVEDM | - | - | ✓ | 93.15 | 92.06 | 89.38 | 89.18 | |
| (2)w/o KGSMOTE | - | ✓ | ✓ | 99.37 | 99.06 | 99.04 | 99.05 | |
| (3)w/o MDSAE | ✓ | - | ✓ | 99.74 | 99.61 | 99.59 | 99.60 | |
| Model | Year | Datasets | Accuracy | Classifification | Unknown attack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MDPCA-DBN [46] | 2019 | NSL-KDD | 82.08 | Multi (5) | ✓ |
| LCVAE [47] | 2020 | NSL-KDD | 85.51 | Multi (5) | ✓ |
| CAFE-CNN [48] | 2021 | NSL-KDD | 83.34 | Multi (5) | ✓ |
| ID-UL [49] | 2022 | NSL-KDD | 81.48 | Multi (5) | ✓ |
| CS-NN [50] | 2022 | NSL-KDD | 85.56 | Multi (5) | ✓ |
| LGBA-NN [51] | 2022 | N-BaIoT | 90.00 | Multi (11) | - |
| SGAN-IDS [52] | 2022 | N-BaIoT | 99.89 | Binary (2) | - |
| EL-DTs [53] | 2022 | N-BaIoT | 99.60 | Multi (10) | - |
| Cu-DNNGRU [54] | 2022 | N-BaIoT | 99.39 | Multi (9) | - |
| GSMOTE-AE-RF(Baseline) | 2023 | NSL-KDD | 80.99 | Multi (5) | - |
| GSMOTE-AE-RF(Baseline) | 2023 | N-BaIoT | 98.47 | Multi (3) | - |
| KGMS-IDS(Proposed) | 2023 | NSL-KDD | 86.39 | Multi (5) | ✓ |
| KGMS-IDS(Proposed) | 2023 | N-BaIoT | 99.94 | Multi (3) | ✓ |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).