| Literature DB >> 23056036 |
S Ganapathy1, P Yogesh, A Kannan.
Abstract
Intrusion detection systems were used in the past along with various techniques to detect intrusions in networks effectively. However, most of these systems are able to detect the intruders only with high false alarm rate. In this paper, we propose a new intelligent agent-based intrusion detection model for mobile ad hoc networks using a combination of attribute selection, outlier detection, and enhanced multiclass SVM classification methods. For this purpose, an effective preprocessing technique is proposed that improves the detection accuracy and reduces the processing time. Moreover, two new algorithms, namely, an Intelligent Agent Weighted Distance Outlier Detection algorithm and an Intelligent Agent-based Enhanced Multiclass Support Vector Machine algorithm are proposed for detecting the intruders in a distributed database environment that uses intelligent agents for trust management and coordination in transaction processing. The experimental results of the proposed model show that this system detects anomalies with low false alarm rate and high-detection rate when tested with KDD Cup 99 data set.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23056036 PMCID: PMC3465880 DOI: 10.1155/2012/850259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1System architecture.
The 41 features in KDD Cup'99 Dataset.
| S. No | Feature name | S. No | Feature name |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | duration | 22 | is_guest_login |
| 2 | protocol_type | 23 | count |
| 3 | service | 24 | serror_rate |
| 4 | src_byte | 25 | rerror_rate |
| 5 | dst_byte | 26 | same_srv_rate |
| 6 | flag | 27 | diff_srv_rate |
| 7 | land | 28 | srv_count |
| 8 | wrong_fragment | 29 | srv_serror_rate |
| 9 | urgent | 30 | srv_rerror_rate |
| 10 | hot | 31 | srv_diff_host_rate |
| 11 | num_failed_logins | 32 | dst_host_count |
| 12 | logged_in | 33 | dst_host_srv_count |
| 13 | num_compromised | 34 | dst_host_same_srv_count |
| 14 | root_shell | 35 | dst_host_diff_srv_count |
| 15 | su_attempted | 36 | dst_host_same_src_port_rate |
| 16 | num_root | 37 | dst_host_srv_diff_host_rate |
| 17 | num_file_creations | 38 | dst_host_serror_rate |
| 18 | num_shells | 39 | dst_host_srv_serror_rate |
| 19 | num_access_shells | 40 | dst_host_rerror_rate |
| 20 | num_outbound_cmds | 41 | dst_host_srv_rerror_rate |
| 21 | is_hot_login |
List of 19-selected features from 41 features.
| S. No | Feature number | Feature name |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | protocol_type |
| 2 | 4 | src_byte |
| 3 | 8 | wrong_fragment |
| 4 | 10 | hot |
| 5 | 14 | root_shell |
| 6 | 15 | su_attempted |
| 7 | 19 | num_access_shells |
| 8 | 25 | rerror_rate |
| 9 | 27 | diff_srv_rate |
| 10 | 29 | srv_serror_rate |
| 11 | 31 | srv_diff_host_rate |
| 12 | 32 | dst_host_count |
| 13 | 33 | dst_host_srv_count |
| 14 | 34 | dst_host_same_srv_count |
| 15 | 35 | dst_host_diff_srv_count |
| 16 | 36 | dst_host_same_src_port_rate |
| 17 | 37 | dst_host_srv_diff_host_rate |
| 18 | 38 | dst_host_serror_rate |
| 19 | 40 | dst_host_rerror_rate |
Detection accuracy with 41 features.
| Exp. number | Enhanced MSVM [ | WDBOD [ | IAFSHC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Probe | DoS | Others | Probe | DoS | Others | Probe | DoS | Others | |
| 1 | 99.00 | 99.12 | 69.19 | 99.49 | 99.62 | 70.52 | 99.53 | 99.51 | 69.60 |
| 2 | 98.90 | 99.12 | 68.91 | 99.39 | 99.22 | 68.72 | 99.10 | 99.17 | 69.38 |
| 3 | 98.92 | 99.02 | 69.10 | 99.51 | 99.41 | 73.32 | 99.63 | 99.52 | 69.73 |
| 4 | 99.10 | 99.12 | 69.19 | 99.24 | 99.14 | 72.25 | 99.62 | 99.58 | 69.79 |
| 5 | 99.15 | 99.07 | 68.89 | 99.32 | 99.13 | 70.92 | 99.54 | 99.49 | 69.19 |
Detection accuracy with 19 features.
| Exp. number | Enhanced MSVM [ | WDBOD [ | IAFSHC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Probe | DoS | Others | Probe | DoS | Others | Probe | DoS | Others | |
| 1 | 99.20 | 99.31 | 69.29 | 99.58 | 99.69 | 71.52 | 99.70 | 99.77 | 79.80 |
| 2 | 98.98 | 99.23 | 69.11 | 99.41 | 99.27 | 69.32 | 99.50 | 99.67 | 79.78 |
| 3 | 99.02 | 99.12 | 69.20 | 99.58 | 99.49 | 74.12 | 99.80 | 99.75 | 79.91 |
| 4 | 99.19 | 99.20 | 69.29 | 99.30 | 99.24 | 73.13 | 99.72 | 99.69 | 79.89 |
| 5 | 99.23 | 99.17 | 69.00 | 99.38 | 99.22 | 71.87 | 99.64 | 99.79 | 79.79 |
Performance analysis for EMSVM and IAEMSVM.
| Attacks | EMSVM | IAEMSVM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training time (sec) | Testing time (sec) | Training time (sec) | Testing time (sec) | |
| Probe | 0.52 | 0.21 | 0.50 | 0.19 |
| DoS | 1.72 | 0.54 | 1.71 | 0.52 |
| Others | 0.53 | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.15 |
Performance analysis for WDBOD and IAWDBOD.
| Attacks | WDBOD | IAWDBOD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training time (sec) | Testing time (sec) | Training time (sec) | Testing time (sec) | |
| Probe | 0.62 | 0.22 | 0.60 | 0.20 |
| DoS | 1.92 | 0.64 | 1.88 | 0.62 |
| Others | 0.63 | 0.23 | 0.59 | 0.21 |
Performance of the IAASA.
| Training time (sec) | Testing time (sec) | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probe | 0.42 | 0.21 | 99.77 |
| DoS | 1.76 | 0.84 | 99.87 |
| Others | 0.45 | 0.16 | 86.72 |
Performance analysis for FSHC and IAFSHC.
| Attacks | FSHC | IAFSHC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training time (sec) | Testing time (sec) | Training time (sec) | Testing time (sec) | |
| Probe | 1.56 | 0.69 | 1.52 | 0.64 |
| DoS | 5.77 | 1.89 | 5.72 | 1.84 |
| Others | 1.65 | 0.63 | 1.61 | 0.57 |
Figure 2False alarm rate analyses for IAEMSVM.
Figure 3Results comparison between FSHC and IAFSHC.
Figure 4False alarm rate analysis for proposed Method.
Performance analysis.
| Exp. number | Overall detection accuracy (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IAWDBOD without feature selection | IAWDBOD with feature selection | IAEMSVM without feature selection | IAEMSVM with feature selection | IAHC | IAFSHC | |
| 1 | 89.95 | 90.33 | 89.05 | 90.37 | 89.49 | 93.08 |
| 2 | 89.23 | 90.23 | 88.91 | 90.31 | 89.12 | 93.12 |
| 3 | 89.92 | 89.92 | 89.02 | 89.27 | 88.91 | 94.01 |
| 4 | 89.72 | 90.42 | 89.12 | 89.92 | 89.54 | 92.45 |
| 5 | 88.97 | 90.37 | 89.01 | 90.32 | 89.20 | 92.92 |
|
| ||||||
| Avg | 89.56 | 90.25 | 89.02 | 90.04 | 89.25 | 93.12 |