2019 International Russian Automation Conference (RusAutoCon) 2019
DOI: 10.1109/rusautocon.2019.8867696
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attack Detection in Enterprise Networks by Machine Learning Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 10 shows a comparison of L-SVC, DNN, and S-DTC models trained using our approach with current research for both typical and atypical data based on TPR and TNR values. We train the models presented in [58], [18], [20], and [21] with their default hyperparameters and evaluate their performance using typical attacks, atypical attack-1 and benign flows. Stable results of the AI models trained using our approach on both typical as well as atypical attacks compared to other state-of-the-art models indicate the firstrate performance of our approach.…”
Section: Hpo and Generalization For Tree-based Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 10 shows a comparison of L-SVC, DNN, and S-DTC models trained using our approach with current research for both typical and atypical data based on TPR and TNR values. We train the models presented in [58], [18], [20], and [21] with their default hyperparameters and evaluate their performance using typical attacks, atypical attack-1 and benign flows. Stable results of the AI models trained using our approach on both typical as well as atypical attacks compared to other state-of-the-art models indicate the firstrate performance of our approach.…”
Section: Hpo and Generalization For Tree-based Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attack detection may introduce latency, so, there is a trade-off between performance and security. One recent study where the authors employ CatBoost to detect attacks is "Attack detection in enterprise networks by machine learning methods" [6], by Bakhareva et al Here, the authors find that CatBoost outperforms LightGBM, Linear Support Vector Machine Classifier, and Logistic Regression, in terms of cross validation balanced accuracy, balanced accuracy, F1 score, precision, recall, and AUC. However, they also report that CatBoost has longer training and prediction times.…”
Section: Cyber-securitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in the multi-class case, Support Vector Machine, and Logistic Regression are faster. The results Bakhareva et al report in [6] show that CatBoost is the best detector of attacks, but there is a trade-off in terms of running time.…”
Section: Cyber-securitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Researchers in disparate domains find applications for CatBoost. We find works in the fields of Astronomy [49], Finance [24] [92] [91] [89], Medicine [87] [52] [4] [68], Biology [51] [55], Electrical Utilities Fraud [20] [66] [36], Meteorology [44] [29], Psychology [71] [3], Traffic Engineering [85] [76], Cyber-security [6], Bio-chemistry [88] [58], and Marketing [50]. Therefore, a good understanding of CatBoost may provide one the opportunity to participate in interdisciplinary research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%