2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/ijcnn.2018.8489096
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches to Detect Botnet Traffic

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
25
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As described in Section 2.1, our experiments involve botnet detectors based on five different machine and deep learning algorithms that have been shown by related literature to perform well for botnet detection tasks [3,11,28,45,[61][62][63]: Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Decision Tree (DT), AdaBoost (AB), alongside the recent "Wide and Deep" (WnD) technique proposed by Google [31]. Each detector presents multiple instances, each focused on identifying a specific botnet variant within the adopted dataset-in our case, each detector has six instances (we do not consider the Sogou malware variant due its low amount of available samples).…”
Section: Developing the Baseline Detectorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As described in Section 2.1, our experiments involve botnet detectors based on five different machine and deep learning algorithms that have been shown by related literature to perform well for botnet detection tasks [3,11,28,45,[61][62][63]: Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Decision Tree (DT), AdaBoost (AB), alongside the recent "Wide and Deep" (WnD) technique proposed by Google [31]. Each detector presents multiple instances, each focused on identifying a specific botnet variant within the adopted dataset-in our case, each detector has six instances (we do not consider the Sogou malware variant due its low amount of available samples).…”
Section: Developing the Baseline Detectorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each detector presents multiple instances, each focused on identifying a specific botnet variant within the adopted dataset-in our case, each detector has six instances (we do not consider the Sogou malware variant due its low amount of available samples). This design idea is motivated by the fact that ML detectors show superior performance when they are used as ensembles instead of "catch-all" solutions, in which each instance addresses a specific problem [2,18,62,63].…”
Section: Developing the Baseline Detectorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other botnet types can be used to test if a traffic classifier can improve a previous result. For example, we found that in the work of Abraham et al [43] the best F1 score obtained for the botnet Bunitu was 90% with an ensemble of classifiers. Moreover, the work of AlAhmadi & Martinovic [44] reported that the recall obtained for the NotPetya botnet using an RF classifier was 60%, and that 25% of the samples of this botnet were wrongly classified as produced by the botnet Miuref.…”
Section: A Botnet Detectionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…We used all the available samples from these three botnets in their repository by the end of 2020. We selected these new particular botnets to be able to compare our study with the works of Abraham et al [43] and AlAhmadi & Martinovic [44]. The number of used TCP flows of each class in both datasets is specified in Table 2.…”
Section: Experimentation a Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several applications provide insights for data security, e.g. the recent papers on botnet traffic [14], data stream of network infections [15], physical intrusions in building [16]. Safety applications of anomaly detection are not common: some researches forecast specific hazards, e.g.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%