skip to main content
10.1145/967900.967989acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Naive Bayes vs decision trees in intrusion detection systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 March 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

Bayes networks are powerful tools for decision and reasoning under uncertainty. A very simple form of Bayes networks is called naive Bayes, which are particularly efficient for inference tasks. However, naive Bayes are based on a very strong independence assumption. This paper offers an experimental study of the use of naive Bayes in intrusion detection. We show that even if having a simple structure, naive Bayes provide very competitive results. The experimental study is done on KDD'99 intrusion data sets. We consider three levels of attack granularities depending on whether dealing with whole attacks, or grouping them in four main categories or just focusing on normal and abnormal behaviours. In the whole experimentations, we compare the performance of naive Bayes networks with one of well known machine learning techniques which is decision tree. Moreover, we compare the good performance of Bayes nets with respect to existing best results performed on KDD'99.

References

  1. Axelsson, S.: Intrusion detection systems: a survey and taxonomy. Technical report 99-15, March 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., Stone, C. J.: Classification and regression trees. Monterey, CA Wadsworth & Brooks, 1984.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, G. F.: Computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayes belief networks. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 42, 393--405, 1990.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Hyafil, L., Rivest, R. L: Constructing optimal binary decision trees is NP-complete. Information Processing Letters, 5(1):15--17, 1976.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Jensen, F. V.: Introduction to Bayesien networks. UCL Press, 1996.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. John, G.: Enhancements to the Data Mining Process. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kumar, S., Spafford., E. H.: A software architecture to support misuse intrusion detection. In proceedings of the 18th National Information Security Conference, 194--204, 1995.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ilgun, K., Kemmerer., R. A., Porras, P. A.: State transition: A rule-based intrusion detection approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(3), 181--199, 1995.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lunt, T.: Detecting intruders in computer systems. In proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium and Technical Displays on Physical and Electronic Security, 1993.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pearl J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmman, Los Altos, CA, 1988.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Porras, P. A., Neumann., P. G., EMERALD: Event monitoring enabling responses to anomalous live disturbances. In proceedings of the 20th National Information Systems Security Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, NIST, 353--365, 1997.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Quinlan, J. R.: C4.5, Programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann San Mateo Ca, 1993.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Quinlan, J. R.: Bagging, boosting, and C4.5. Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on AI, Vol. 1, 725--730, 1997.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Valdes, A., Skinner K.: Adaptive Model-based Monitoring for Cyber Attack Detection. In proceedings of Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID 2000), Toulouse, France, 80--92, 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. http://kdd.ccs.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/task.html]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. R. Marty: Snort the open source network IDS, http://www.snort.org/, 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Naive Bayes vs decision trees in intrusion detection systems

      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
        SAC '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing
        March 2004
        1733 pages
        ISBN:1581138121
        DOI:10.1145/967900

        Copyright © 2004 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: 14 March 2004

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader