Submitted:
26 January 2024
Posted:
26 January 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Related Work
3. Proposed Methodology and Model
4. Results and Discussion
| Layer (type) | Output Shape | Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| Flatten | (None, 16641) | 0 |
| Dense | (None, 15) | 249630 |
| Dense | (None, 2) | 32 |
| Total params: 249,662 Trainable params: 249,662 Non-trainable params: 0 | ||
| Layer (type) | Output Shape | Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| Conv2D | (None, 43, 43, 8) | 80 |
| Conv2D | (None, 14, 14, 8) | 584 |
| Flatten | (None, 1568) | 0 |
| Dense | (None, 5) | 7845 |
| Dense | (None, 2) | 12 |
| Total params: 8,521 Trainable params: 8,521 Non-trainable params: 0 | ||
5. Conclusion
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- cybersecurity-statistics @ www.fortinet.com. Available online: https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/cybersecurity-statistics.
- Munroe, C. IDC MarketScape IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Service Providers 2018 Vendor Assessment. no. January, 2018; pp. 1–6.
- Cisco, C. “5 Steps to Protecting Your Organization from a DDoS Attack”.
- tracking-cyber-operations-and-actors-russia-ukraine-war @ www.cfr.org.
- “index @ www.cloudflare.com.” Available online: https://www.cloudflare.com/.
- Fernandes, G.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C.; Carvalho, L.F.; Al-Muhtadi, J.F.; Proença, M.L. A comprehensive survey on network anomaly detection. Telecommun. Syst. 2019, 70, 447–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Protic, D.; Stankovic, M. A hybrid model for anomaly-based intrusion detection in complex computer networks. Proc. - 2020 21st Int. Arab Conf. Inf. Technol. ACIT 2020, 2020, 2160–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrag, M.A.; Maglaras, L.; Moschoyiannis, S.; Janicke, H. Deep learning for cyber security intrusion detection: Approaches, datasets, and comparative study. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2020, 50, 102419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsimenidis, S.; Lagkas, T.; Rantos, K. Deep Learning in IoT Intrusion Detection; Springer US, 2022; Volume 30, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basnet, R.B.; Shash, R.; Johnson, C.; Walgren, L.; Doleck, T. Towards detecting and classifying network intrusion traffic using deep learning frameworks. J. Internet Serv. Inf. Secur. 2019, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, Z.; et al. Anomaly detection using deep neural network for iot architecture. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idrissi, I.; Boukabous, M.; Azizi, M.; Moussaoui, O.; El Fadili, H. Toward a deep learning-based intrusion detection system for iot against botnet attacks. IAES Int. J. Artif. Intell. 2021, 10, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, M.; Syed, N.F.; Fu, X.; Baig, Z.; Robles-Kelly, A. Towards a deep learning-driven intrusion detection approach for Internet of Things. Comput. Networks 2020, 186, 107784–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, R.; Wang, N.; Liu, Z.; Chen, P.; Sheng, X. Intrusion detection system in the advanced metering infrastructure: A cross-layer feature-fusion CNN-LSTM-based approach. Sensors (Switzerland) 2021, 21, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Imrana, Y.; Xiang, Y.; Ali, L.; Abdul-Rauf, Z. A bidirectional LSTM deep learning approach for intrusion detection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 185, 115524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Li, P.; Wang, X. Intrusion Detection for IoT Based on Improved Genetic Algorithm and Deep Belief Network. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 31711–31722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mezina, A.; Burget, R.; Travieso-Gonzalez, C.M. Network Anomaly Detection With Temporal Convolutional Network and U-Net Model. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 143608–143622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Shim, M.; Choi, E. CNN-based network intrusion detection against denial-of-service attacks. Electron. 2020, 9, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, V.; Seo, E.; Chung, T.M. Lightweight convolutional neural network based intrusion detection system. J. Commun. 2020, 15, 808–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, R.H.; Peng, M.C.; Huang, C.W.; Lin, P.C.; Nguyen, V.L. An Unsupervised Deep Learning Model for Early Network Traffic Anomaly Detection. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 30387–30399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, A.S.; Ahmad, Z.; Abdullah, J.; Ahmad, F. A Spectrogram Image-Based Network Anomaly Detection System Using Deep Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 87079–87093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ef23092713b1e5491cfcc5bc918d5322c5751c28 @ registry.opendata.aws. Available online: https://registry.opendata.aws/cse-cic-ids2018/.
- Novaes, M.P.; Carvalho, L.F.; Lloret, J.; Proença, M.L. Adversarial Deep Learning Approach Detection and Defense against DDoS Attacks in SDN Environments. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2021, 125, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Olaimat, M.; Lee, D.; Kim, Y.; Kim, J.; Kim, J. A Learning-based Data Augmentation for Network Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the 2020 29th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN); 2020; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Lei, K. IGAN-IDS: An imbalanced generative adversarial network towards intrusion detection system in ad-hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networks 2020, 105, 102177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dlamini, G.; Fahim, M. DGM: a data generative model to improve minority class presence in anomaly detection domain. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 33, 13635–13646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, X.; Chen, X.; Liu, L. GAN Ensemble for Anomaly Detection. 2018.
- Ezeme, O.M.; Mahmoud, Q.H.; Azim, A. Design and development of AD-CGAN: Conditional generative adversarial networks for anomaly detection. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 177667–177681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ullah, I.; Mahmoud, Q.H. A Framework for Anomaly Detection in IoT Networks Using Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 165907–165931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, E.; Long, J.; Liu, Q.; Cui, J.; Cai, Z.; Ma, J. SU-IDS: A Semi-supervised and Unsupervised Framework for Network Intrusion Detection BT - Cloud Computing and Security. 2018; pp. 322–334.
- Wang, W.; et al. HAST-IDS: Learning Hierarchical Spatial-Temporal Features Using Deep Neural Networks to Improve Intrusion Detection. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 1792–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Qatf, M.; Lasheng, Y.; Al-habib, M.; Al-Sabahi, K. Deep Learning Approach Combining Sparse Autoencoder With SVM for Network Intrusion Detection. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 52843–52856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shone, N.; Ng, T.N.; Phai, V.D.; Shi, Q. A Deep Learning Approach to Network Intrusion Detection. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell. 2018, 2, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludwig, S.A. Intrusion Detection of Multiple Attack Classes using a Deep Neural Net Ensemble. 2017.
- Yin, C.; Zhu, Y.; Fei, J.; He, X.-Z. A Deep Learning Approach for Intrusion Detection Using Recurrent Neural Networks. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 21954–21961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diro, A.A.; Chilamkurti, N.K. Distributed attack detection scheme using deep learning approach for Internet of Things. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017, 82, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aksu, D.; Aydın, M.A. Detecting Port Scan Attempts with Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning and Support Vector Machine Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2018 Int. Congr. Big Data, Deep Learn. Fight. Cyber Terror., 2018; pp. 77–80. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, T.A.; Mhamdi, L.; McLernon, D.C.; Zaidi, S.A.R.; Ghogho, M. Deep Recurrent Neural Network for Intrusion Detection in SDN-based Networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 4th IEEE Conf. Netw. Softwarization Work, 2018; pp. 202–206. [Google Scholar]
- Andresini, G.; Appice, A.; Di Mauro, N.; Loglisci, C.; Malerba, D. Multi-Channel Deep Feature Learning for Intrusion Detection. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 53346–53359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roopak, M.; Tian, G.-Y.; Chambers, J.A. Deep Learning Models for Cyber Security in IoT Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 9th Annu. Comput. Commun. Work. Conf. 2019; pp. 452–457. [Google Scholar]
- Atefinia, R.; Ahmadi, M. Network intrusion detection using multi-architectural modular deep neural network. Journal of Supercomputing 2021, 77, 3571–3593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catillo, M.; Rak, M.; Villano, U. 2L-ZED-IDS: A Two-Level Anomaly Detector for Multiple Attack Classes BT - Web, Artificial Intelligence and Network Applications, 2020, pp. 687–696.
- Lin, P.; Ye, K.; Xu, C. Dynamic Network Anomaly Detection System by Using Deep Learning Techniques. 2019.













| Dataset | Acc(%) | Pre(%) | FNR | FPR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIC-IDS2018 | ANN:99.55 | ANN:99.55 | FNN:0.0121 | FNN:0.0027 |
| CNN:99.42 | CNN:99.42 | CNN:0.0089 | CNN:0.0037 | |
| NSL-KDD | ANN:99.87 | ANN:99.87 | FNN:0.0006 | FNN:0.0009 |
| CNN:99.82 | CNN:99.82 | CNN:0.0008 | CNN:0.0022 | |
| Combined dataset | ANN:99.63 | ANN:99.63 | FNN:0.0058 | FNN:0.0026 |
| CNN:99.37 | CNN:99.37 | CNN:0.0097 | CNN:0.0034 |
| Dataset | Normal Dataset | Attack | Training Vs Test split |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIC-IDS2018 | 200,000 | 140, 000 | 90% Vs 10% |
| NSL-KDD | 65, 000 | 110, 000 | 90% Vs 10% |
| Combined Dataset | 240, 000 | 170, 000 | 95% Vs 5% |
| Article | Used dataset | Model | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Novaes et al. [23] | CICDDoS2019 | GANs | Acc: 94.38 |
| Olaimat et al. [24] | CICIDS2017 | GANs | Acc: 93.20 |
| Huang et al. [25] | NSLKDD | IGANs | Acc: 84.45 |
| Dlamini et al. [26] | NSLKDD | CGANs | F1 Score: 73.00 |
| Han et al. [27] | KDD99 | GANs Ensemble | Precision: 96.70 |
| Ezeme et al. [28] | KDD99 | cGANs | Acc: 85.63 |
| Imtiaz U. et al. [29] | KDD99 | cGANs | Precision: 99.05 |
| E. min et al. [30] | NSLKDD, CICIDS2017 | Autoencoder | DR: 99.00 |
| W.Wang [31] | DARPA 1998 & ISCX 2012 | CNN+LSTM | DR: 99.00, FAR: 0.02 |
| M. Al-Qatf [32] | KDD99 | Autoencoder + SVM | DR:95.00 |
| Shone et al. [33] | KDD99 & NSLKDD | Asymmetric Autoencoder | Acc: 97.90, FAR: 2.10 |
| Ludwig SA [34] | NSLKDD | Ensemble combining AE, DBN, DNN & ELM Algorithms | Acc: 92.49, FAR: 0.147 |
| Yin et al. [35] | NSLKDD | RNN network and comparison with machine learning | Acc: 83.28, FAR: 0.07 |
| A.Diro et al. [36] | NSLKDD | DNN with 4 hidden layers | Acc: 99.20 |
| D. Aksu et al. [37] | CICIDS2017 | DNN with 7 hidden layers | Acc: 98.00 |
| T. Tang et al. [38] | NSLKDD | DNN with 3 hidden layers | Acc: 75.75 |
| Andresini et al. [39] | CICIDS2017 | Autoencoder and 1D CNN | Acc: 97.00 |
| Roopak et al. [40] | CICIDS2017 | CNN+LSTM | Acc: 96.20 |
| A.S. Khan [21] | CICIDS2017 | SDCNN | Acc: 98.76 |
| Atefinia & Ahmadi [41] | CICIDS2018 | Modular DNN | Acc: 100 |
| Basnet et al. [10] | CICIDS2018 | MLP | Acc: 99 |
| Catillo et al. [42] | CICIDS2018 | Deep Autoencoder | Acc: 99.20 |
| Kim et al. [18] | CICIDS2018 | CNN | Acc: 99.99 |
| Lin et al. [43] | CICIDS2018 | LSTM | Acc: 96.20 |
| Our system | CICIDS2018, NSLKDD, & mix of these two | Lightweight CNN | Acc: 99.37, Pre: 99.37, FNR: 0.0034, FPR: 0.0097 |
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. |
© 2024 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/).