2013 15th International Conference on Advanced Computing Technologies (ICACT) 2013
DOI: 10.1109/icact.2013.6710523
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behaviour analysis of machine learning algorithms for detecting P2P botnets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…S. Garg et al [2] performed a comparison of three machine learning techniques commonly used for the detection of decentralized botnets: C4.5, Nearest Neighbours, and Bayesian Network. They used features based on connection intervals of time.…”
Section: Related Work On Algorithms For Detecting Botnetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S. Garg et al [2] performed a comparison of three machine learning techniques commonly used for the detection of decentralized botnets: C4.5, Nearest Neighbours, and Bayesian Network. They used features based on connection intervals of time.…”
Section: Related Work On Algorithms For Detecting Botnetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Garg focused on the traffic characteristics such as the size of the packets, the number of packets, the size of the payloads, and the packet length per flow or host and used a machine learning algorithm to detect P2P botnets [7].…”
Section: Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e textual spam e-mail classification can be analyzed using KNN model [3]; the author used summarization technique for knowledge extraction. P2P botnet traffic can be classified by differentiating the features using the machine learning algorithm [4]. e authors extracted 17 features first and then removed five features from them because of the nominal values.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Garg et al [4] Lin and Chen [19] Ye et al [20] Bijalwan et al [11] Cadenas et al [21] Liu et al [13] Classifier 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 8…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%