skip to main content
10.1145/3428363.3428371acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnsyssConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Network Intrusion Detection System based on Conditional Variational Laplace AutoEncoder

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 December 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) is an important tool for network administrators to detect security breaches in a network. However, due to the diversity of attacks and imbalanced datasets having less number of data pertinent to attack events, current machine learning based NIDS applications often do not perform well. Therefore, it is important to synthesize data in a probabilistic manner that is similar to original attack event related data. Accordingly, in this paper, we propose a new paradigm of the synthesizing task based on Variational Laplace AutoEncoder (VLAE) and Deep Neural Network, and exploit the paradigm to develop a new intrusion detection model. Here, we go beyond the existing VLAE model through incorporating class labels as an input. We term the enhanced model as Conditional Variational Laplace AutoEncoder (CVLAE). We employ the CVLAE to learn latent variable representations of network data features and to synthesize data in a probabilistic manner. We use a Deep Neural Network (DNN) classifier, trained on the original and synthesized data, and classify the attack samples. We evaluate our model on the benchmark NSL-KDD dataset. We demonstrate efficacy of our proposed model through showing that our method achieve higher precision in minority attacks than other methods in our experimentation.

References

  1. Tamer Aldwairi, Dilina Perera, and Mark A Novotny. 2018. An evaluation of the performance of Restricted Boltzmann Machines as a model for anomaly network intrusion detection. Computer Networks 144(2018), 111–119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jinwon An and Sungzoon Cho. 2015. Variational autoencoder based anomaly detection using reconstruction probability. Special Lecture on IE 2, 1 (2015), 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Rodrigo Braga, Edjard de Souza Mota, and Alexandre Passito. 2010. Lightweight DDoS flooding attack detection using NOX/OpenFlow.. In LCN, Vol. 10. 408–415.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nitesh V Chawla, Kevin W Bowyer, Lawrence O Hall, and W Philip Kegelmeyer. 2002. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of artificial intelligence research 16 (2002), 321–357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Kruti Choksi, Bhavin Shah, and Ompriya Kale. 2014. Intrusion detection system using self organizing map: a surevey. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications 4, 12(2014), 11–16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Haibo He, Yang Bai, Edwardo A Garcia, and Shutao Li. 2008. ADASYN: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In 2008 IEEE international joint conference on neural networks (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence). IEEE, 1322–1328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Shamsul Huda, Suruz Miah, John Yearwood, Sultan Alyahya, Hmood Al-Dossari, and Robin Doss. 2018. A malicious threat detection model for cloud assisted internet of things (CoT) based industrial control system (ICS) networks using deep belief network. J. Parallel and Distrib. Comput. 120 (2018), 23–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ahmad Javaid, Quamar Niyaz, Weiqing Sun, and Mansoor Alam. 2016. A deep learning approach for network intrusion detection system. In Proceedings of the 9th EAI International Conference on Bio-inspired Information and Communications Technologies (formerly BIONETICS). ICST, 21–26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Michael I Jordan, Zoubin Ghahramani, Tommi S Jaakkola, and Lawrence K Saul. 1998. An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. In Learning in graphical models. Springer, 105–161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Yuta Kawachi, Yuma Koizumi, and Noboru Harada. 2018. Complementary set variational autoencoder for supervised anomaly detection. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2366–2370.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gisung Kim, Seungmin Lee, and Sehun Kim. 2014. A novel hybrid intrusion detection method integrating anomaly detection with misuse detection. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 4 (2014), 1690–1700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980(2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Durk P Kingma, Shakir Mohamed, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, and Max Welling. 2014. Semi-supervised learning with deep generative models. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3581–3589.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. arxiv:1312.6114 [stat.ML]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Levent Koc, Thomas A Mazzuchi, and Shahram Sarkani. 2012. A network intrusion detection system based on a Hidden Naïve Bayes multiclass classifier. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 18 (2012), 13492–13500.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Yihua Liao and V Rao Vemuri. 2002. Use of k-nearest neighbor classifier for intrusion detection. Computers & security 21, 5 (2002), 439–448.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Manuel Lopez-Martin, Belen Carro, Antonio Sanchez-Esguevillas, and Jaime Lloret. 2017. Conditional variational autoencoder for prediction and feature recovery applied to intrusion detection in iot. Sensors 17, 9 (2017), 1967.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Tahir Mehmood and Helmi B Md Rais. 2015. SVM for network anomaly detection using ACO feature subset. In 2015 International symposium on mathematical sciences and computing research (iSMSC). IEEE, 121–126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lee Nicholas, Shih Yin Ooi, Ying Han Pang, Seong Oun Hwang, and Syh-Yuan Tan. 2018. Study of long short-term memory in flow-based network intrusion detection system. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy SystemsPreprint (2018), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Quamar Niyaz, Weiqing Sun, and Ahmad Y Javaid. 2016. A deep learning based DDoS detection system in software-defined networking (SDN). arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07400(2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Yookoon Park, Chris Kim, and Gunhee Kim. 2019. Variational Laplace Autoencoders. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 5032–5041.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Rinku Sen, Manojit Chattopadhyay, and Nilanjan Sen. 2015. An efficient approach to develop an intrusion detection system based on multi layer backpropagation neural network algorithm: IDS using BPNN algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People Research. ACM, 105–108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. J. Stolfo. [n.d.]. KDD Cup 1999. http://kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/kddcup99.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiayu Sun, Xinzhou Wang, Naixue Xiong, and Jie Shao. 2018. Learning sparse representation with variational auto-encoder for anomaly detection. IEEE Access 6(2018), 33353–33361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Tuan A Tang, Lotfi Mhamdi, Des McLernon, Syed Ali Raza Zaidi, and Mounir Ghogho. 2016. Deep learning approach for network intrusion detection in software defined networking. In 2016 International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Communications (WINCOM). IEEE, 258–263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. UNB. [n.d.]. NSL-KDD Dataset. https://www.unb.ca/cic/datasets/nsl.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ly Vu, Quang Uy Nguyen, Diep N Nguyen, Dinh Thai Hoang, Eryk Dutkiewicz, 2019. Learning latent distribution for distinguishing network traffic in intrusion detection system. In ICC 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Yanqing Yang, Kangfeng Zheng, Chunhua Wu, and Yixian Yang. 2019. Improving the classification effectiveness of intrusion detection by using improved conditional variational autoencoder and deep neural network. Sensors 19, 11 (2019), 2528.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Chuanlong Yin, Yuefei Zhu, Jinlong Fei, and Xinzheng He. 2017. A deep learning approach for intrusion detection using recurrent neural networks. IEEE Access 5(2017), 21954–21961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

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 Other conferences
    NSysS '20: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networking, Systems and Security
    December 2020
    132 pages
    ISBN:9781450389051
    DOI:10.1145/3428363

    Copyright © 2020 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: 22 December 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate12of44submissions,27%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format