2006
DOI: 10.1007/11962977_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proposals on Assessment Environments for Anomaly-Based Network Intrusion Detection Systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Real traffic, on the other hand, should be stripped of confidential data, carefully labeled and rigorously sanitized in order to meet the established criteria. Several studies contributed approaches to sanitization of traffic [13,25,47,100] in order to not only label embedded attacks and benign traces, but also to pre-select the most representative instances. Automated sanitization uses such methods as entropy analysis and signature-based attack labeling, which may result in erroneous ground-truth.…”
Section: Representative Datasets and Ground Truthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Real traffic, on the other hand, should be stripped of confidential data, carefully labeled and rigorously sanitized in order to meet the established criteria. Several studies contributed approaches to sanitization of traffic [13,25,47,100] in order to not only label embedded attacks and benign traces, but also to pre-select the most representative instances. Automated sanitization uses such methods as entropy analysis and signature-based attack labeling, which may result in erroneous ground-truth.…”
Section: Representative Datasets and Ground Truthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, and additional challenge appear in this process. In order to use these models for intrusion detection, a "clean" training set [14] should be used, i.e., data without attacks to train the models. In other words, as the system is attempting to model the normal behavior of the instances of the protocol, the training set must be representative of this normal operation and should not contain attack instances.…”
Section: Challenges and Strategies For The Use Of S3m In P2p Promentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a consequence, if there is no control on the traffic from users, it is very difficult to obtain a trace with no attack instances. Various approaches to this problem have been proposed in the literature [14][16], but they all rely on the use of a S-NIDS to filter out the attacks in the captured traffic, which can be inaccurate due to false positives and to detection errors in the process. In our approach, for dealing with such issue, during the noncontrolled environment phase, given the fact that preliminary FSAs are built in the first phases, we try to get advantage of this information to filter possible attack instances that appear in the traces.…”
Section: Challenges and Strategies For The Use Of S3m In P2p Promentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the workload associated with this process grows linearly with the size of the trace. And, although unsupervised sanitization approaches have been suggested (e.g., analysis of entropy [11], or filtering known-attacks with signature-based IDS [12]), manual supervision may be unavoidable in order to discover attacks (e.g., 0-day) unnoticed by fully automated methods [13], [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%