Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHMS FOR MACHINE LEARNING BASED NETWORK INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS
Dr. Srinivasa K. G., P. N. Pavan Kumar
M. S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India
Presented at: International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Information Technologies, ICECIT -2012
22 December 2012
risk because of increasing network attacks. NIDS plays a prominent role in any modern security system. Traditional IDS are signature-based systems. They cannot identify novel attacks. Newer attacks whose signature have not been identified are those which prove to be a bigger security threat than the existing ones.
22 December 2012
dataset, the attacks can be classified from regular network patterns. Machine Learning algorithms:
1. 2.
22 December 2012
Classification Algorithms
1. Bayesian Learning:
Computation of posterior probability distribution. Combining prior knowledge and observed data. [4]
2. Meta Learning:
Uses experience to change certain aspects of a learning algorithm, or the learning method itself, such that the modified learner is better than the original learner is, at learning from additional experience. [6]
22 December 2012
These learning algorithms use a standard set of nested conditions for learning and has a hierarchical arrangement of conditions.
A decision tree is a classier depicted in a owchart like tree structure. Comprehensive in nature and resembles human reasoning. [7]
J48 NBTree Random Forest Random Tree REP Tree Simple CART
22 December 2012
KStar
22 December 2012
evaluation
Network Data
Pre Processing
Conversion to ARFF
Classifier Algorithm
NIDS Model
Testing Output
22 December 2012
inversely proportional to the percentage of records in the original KDD data set. The number of records in the train and test sets are reasonable. Consequently, evaluation results of different research works will be consistent and comparable.
22 December 2012
22 December 2012
10
Algorithm
BayesNetwork NaiveBayes AdaboostM1 RotationForest DecisionTable
Accuracy (%)
74.4322 76.1178 78.4422 77.4885 72.5958
Nnge J48
NBTree Tree RandomForest RandomTree REPTree SimpleCART
78.9168 81.5339
78.6107 77.7679 81.3565 81.5073 80.3229
22 December 2012
11
Algorithm
BayesNetwork NaiveBayes AdaboostM1 RotationForest DecisionTable
Time (seconds)
7.31 2.03 32.77 1719.03 111.36 62.14 45.4 423.25 18.87
Nnge J48
NBTree Tree RandomForest RandomTree REPTree SimpleCART
2.13 7.46
266.09
22 December 2012
12
Algorithm
BayesNetwork NaiveBayes AdaboostM1 RotationForest DecisionTable
Nnge J48
NBTree Tree RandomForest RandomTree REPTree SimpleCART
2.8 4.6
3.7
22 December 2012
13
Conclusion
Accuracy of models alone will not be a good criteria for
evaluation of classifier algorithms. Other criteria such as time taken for model generation and memory performance during model generation and testing are important. Decision Tree based classifier algorithms are better suited for NIDS. Bayesian learning algorithms follow. Overall, J48 classification algorithm, followed by Random Tree gave the best results considering all criteria.
22 December 2012
14
References
1. Jiong Zhang, Mohammad Zulkernine: Network Intrusion Detection using Random Forests, PST (2005). 2. Nils J. Nilsson, Introduction to Machine Learning. California, United Stated of America (1999). 3. Mohd Fauzi bin Othman, Thomas Moh Shan Yau, Comparison of Different Classification Techniques Using Weka for Breast Cancer International Conference on Biomedical Engineering (BIOMED) 2006 11-14 December 2006, Kuala Lumpur, (2006). 4. David Poole, Alan Mackworth, Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents, Cambridge University Press, (2010). 5. T. Schaul and J. Schmidhuber. Metalearning. Scholarpedia, 5(6):4650, (2010). 6. George H. John and Pat Langley, Estimating Continuous Distributions in Bayesian Classifiers. Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. pp. 338-345. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1995). 7. Barros, R.C.; Basgalupp, M.P.; de Carvalho, A.C.P.L.F.; Freitas, A.A.; , "A Survey of Evolutionary Algorithms for Decision-Tree Induction," Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on , vol.42, no.3, pp.291-312, (May 2012). 8. Yoav Freund and Robert E. Schapire , Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. Proc International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 148-156, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996). 9. Ian H.Witten, Eibe Frank. Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, (2005).
22 December 2012
15
References (contd.)
10. Juan J. Rodriguez, Ludmila I. Kuncheva, Carlos J. Alonso, Rotation Forest: A new classifier ensemble method. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 28(10):1619-1630, (2006). 11. Leonard Bolc, Ryszard Tadeusiewicz, Leszek J. Chmielewski, Konrad W. Wojciechowski: Computer Vision and Graphics - International Conference, ICCVG 2010, Warsaw, Poland, September 20-22, 2010, Proceedings, Part II Springer (2010). 12. Weka software, Machine Learning, [http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/Weka/], The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. 13. Overview for extended Weka including Ensembles of Hierarchically Nested Dichotomies, [http://www.dbs.informatik.unimuenchen.de/~zimek/diplomathesis/implementations/EHNDs/doc/]. 14. Tavallaee, M.; Bagheri, E.; Wei Lu; Ghorbani, A.A.; , "A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set," Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications, 2009. CISDA 2009. IEEE Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1-6, 8-10, (July 2009). 15. Hettich, S. and Bay, S. D. (1999). The UCI KDD Archive [http://kdd.ics.uci.edu]. Irvine, CA: University of California, Department of Information and Computer Science. 16. The NSL KDD Dataset, [http://nsl.cs.unb.ca/NSL-KDD/], (2009). 17. Weka (machine learning) article on Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weka_(machine_learning)].
22 December 2012
16
THANK YOU
Dr. Srinivasa K G kgsrinivas@msrit.edu Pavan Kumar P N pavan24@ieee.org