skip to main content
10.1145/2339530.2339670acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Intrusion as (anti)social communication: characterization and detection

Published:12 August 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

A reasonable definition of intrusion is: entering a community to which one does not belong. This suggests that in a network, intrusion attempts may be detected by looking for communication that does not respect community boundaries. In this paper, we examine the utility of this concept for identifying malicious network sources. In particular, our goal is to explore whether this concept allows a core-network operator using flow data to augment signature-based systems located at network edges. We show that simple measures of communities can be defined for flow data that allow a remarkably effective level of intrusion detection simply by looking for flows that do not respect those communities. We validate our approach using labeled intrusion attempt data collected at a large number of edge networks. Our results suggest that community-based methods can offer an important additional dimension for intrusion detection systems.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

best_paper_3.mp4

mp4

375.7 MB

References

  1. M. Bailey, E. Cooke, F. Jahanian, J. Nazario, and D. Watson. The Internet Motion Sensor: A Distributed Blackhole Monitoring System. In Proceedings of the Network And Distributed Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, January 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Barford, R. Nowak, R. Willett, and V. Yegneswaran. Toward a Model for Sources of Internet Background Radiation. In Proceedings of the Passive and Active Measurement Conference, Adelaide, Australia, March 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Cheung, R. Crawford, M. Dilger, J. Frank, J. Hoagland, K. Levitt, J. Rowe, S. Staniford-Chen, R. Yip, and D. Zerkle. The Design of GrIDS: A Graph-Based Intrusion Detection System. UC Davis Technical Report CSE-99--2, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Clauset, MEJ Newman, and C. Moore. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70(6):66111, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. G. Cormode, F. Korn, S. Muthukrishnan, and Y. Wu. On signatures for communications graphs. In Proceedings of ICDE, Cancun, Mexico, April 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. W. de Nooy, A. Mrvar, and V. Batagelj. Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Benjamin H. Good, Yves A. de Montjoye, and Aaron Clauset. Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts. Physical Review E, 81(4):046106, April 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Y. Jin, E. Sharafuddin, and Z. Zhang. Unveiling core network-wide communication patterns through application traffic activity graph decomposition. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS, Seattle, WA, June 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yu Jin, Jin Cao, Aiyou Chen, Tian Bu, and Zhi-Li Zhang. Identifying high cardinality Internet hosts. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Jung, V. Paxson, A. Berger, and H. Balakrishnan. Fast Portscan Detection Using Sequential Hypothesis Testing. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004, Oakland, CA, May 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. N. Kamiyama, T. Mori, and R. Kawahara. Simple and adaptive identification of superspreaders by flow sampling. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, AK, April 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. KDD Cup data. http://kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/kddcup99.html, August 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Eric D. Kolaczyk. Statistical Analysis of Network Data: Methods and Models. Springer, New York, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. P. McDaniel, S. Sen, O. Spatscheck, J. van der Merwe, B. Aiello, and C. Kalmanek. Enterprise security: A community of interest based approach. In Proceedings of NDSS, San Diego, CA, February 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. C. Noble and D. Cook. Graph-based anomaly detection. In Proceedings of SIGKDD, Washington, DC, August 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. V. Paxson. Bro: A system for detecting network intruders in real-time. Computer Networks, (Special Issue on Intrusion Detection), 31(23--24):2435--2463, December 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. H. Ringberg, A. Soule, J. Rexford, and C. Diot. Sensitivity of pca for traffic anomaly detection. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS, San Diego, CA, June 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Roesch. Snort -- lightweight intrusion detection for networks. In Proceedings of the Usenix LISA Conference, Seattle, WA, November 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Rubin, S. Jha, and B. Miller. Automatic generation and analysis of nids attacks. In Proceedings of Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), Tucson, AZ, December 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Sun, H. Qu, D. Chakrabarti, and C. Faloutsos. Relevance search and anomaly detection in bipartite graphs. Proceedings of SIGKDD Explorations Special Issue on Link Mining, 7(2), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Tolle and O. Niggemann. Supporting Intrusion Detection by Graph Clustering and Graph Drawing. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Toulouse, France, October 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Ullrich. The Dshield Project. http://www.sans.org, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. V. Yegneswaran, P. Barford, and J. Ullrich. Internet Intrusions: Global Characteristics and Prevalence. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS, San Diego, CA, June 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Intrusion as (anti)social communication: characterization and detection

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        KDD '12: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
        August 2012
        1616 pages
        ISBN:9781450314626
        DOI:10.1145/2339530

        Copyright © 2012 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 12 August 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        Upcoming Conference

        KDD '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader