2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10207-019-00475-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel graph-based approach for IoT botnet detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[9] NB, BN, & DT 98.00 [10] Not ML method 99.00 [11] ANN, SVM, k-NN, NB, & GBM 97.00 [12] k-NN, DT, & RF 70.00 [13] ANN, SVM, NB, DT, RF, LR. & BNet 99.47 [14] NB & DT 97.00 [15] DT 99.00 [16] K-means 82.10 [17] DT 97.00 [18] RF 86.41 [19] ANN, SVM, & NB 93.90 [44] Not ML method 99.82 [20] k-NN & RF 91.10 [21] ANN 97.87 [22] DT 90.40 [23] DT 99.46 [24] ANN, SVM, & k-NN 99.00 [45] Not ML method 95.50 [46] Not ML method 99.68 [25] SVM & ANN 94.00 [47] Not ML method 99.70 [26] DT & ANN 99.20 [48] Not ML method 99.00 [27] KNN, SVM, DT, RF, & ANN 99.00 [28] SVM 99.15 [29] k-NN 94.00 [49] Not ML method 96.20 [50] Not ML method 99.35 [51] Not ML method 92.92 [52] Not ML method 98.70 [53] Not ML method 97.00 [54] Not ML method 98.70 [55] Not ML method *100 [56] Not ML method 99.94 [57] Not ML method 99.60 [58] Not ML method 98.60 [59] Not ML method 97.20 [30] k-NN, NB, DT, RF, & SVM 91.80 [31] ANN 99.60 This research LR, LR, DT, NB, k-NN, RF, GBM, SVM, K-means, K-medians, mini batch, HC, ANN, DBSCAN, GMM, LAC, AP, and ensemble learning…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[9] NB, BN, & DT 98.00 [10] Not ML method 99.00 [11] ANN, SVM, k-NN, NB, & GBM 97.00 [12] k-NN, DT, & RF 70.00 [13] ANN, SVM, NB, DT, RF, LR. & BNet 99.47 [14] NB & DT 97.00 [15] DT 99.00 [16] K-means 82.10 [17] DT 97.00 [18] RF 86.41 [19] ANN, SVM, & NB 93.90 [44] Not ML method 99.82 [20] k-NN & RF 91.10 [21] ANN 97.87 [22] DT 90.40 [23] DT 99.46 [24] ANN, SVM, & k-NN 99.00 [45] Not ML method 95.50 [46] Not ML method 99.68 [25] SVM & ANN 94.00 [47] Not ML method 99.70 [26] DT & ANN 99.20 [48] Not ML method 99.00 [27] KNN, SVM, DT, RF, & ANN 99.00 [28] SVM 99.15 [29] k-NN 94.00 [49] Not ML method 96.20 [50] Not ML method 99.35 [51] Not ML method 92.92 [52] Not ML method 98.70 [53] Not ML method 97.00 [54] Not ML method 98.70 [55] Not ML method *100 [56] Not ML method 99.94 [57] Not ML method 99.60 [58] Not ML method 98.60 [59] Not ML method 97.20 [30] k-NN, NB, DT, RF, & SVM 91.80 [31] ANN 99.60 This research LR, LR, DT, NB, k-NN, RF, GBM, SVM, K-means, K-medians, mini batch, HC, ANN, DBSCAN, GMM, LAC, AP, and ensemble learning…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By focusing on analyzing 16 families of IoT Botnet, discovered from 2008 to 2018, Vignau [42] identified IoT Botnet as a significant threat to the IoT ecosystem, and malicious behaviors focused on launching a DDoS attack, characterized by Botnet. Nguyen [19], Angrishi [8], and Kolias [1] also presented behavioral features of the IoT Botnet, including:…”
Section: A Overview Of Iot Botnetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Addressing the risks above, malicious researchers have developed new methods and frameworks to effectively analyze and detect malware samples on IoT devices [14]- [25]. These studies can be divided into two main groups, which are static analysis [14]- [19] and dynamic analysis [20]- [25].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Static analysis examines the codes of malware samples without executing them. In static analysis, content-based features such as instruction opcodes [3], API sequences [4], [5] and function call graphs (FCGs) [6], [7] are typically extracted from disassembled malicious PE files as the original features for analysis. Static analysis can easily capture syntax and semantic information for in-depth analysis, but it is susceptible to code obfuscation techniques, e.g., compression and polymorphic/metamorphic transformation [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%