| Literature DB >> 33815085 |
Mengmeng Ge1, Xiangzhan Yu1, Likun Liu1.
Abstract
With the rapid popularization of robots, the risks brought by robot communication have also attracted the attention of researchers. Because current traffic classification methods based on plaintext cannot classify encrypted traffic, other methods based on statistical analysis require manual extraction of features. This paper proposes (i) a traffic classification framework based on a capsule neural network. This method has a multilayer neural network that can automatically learn the characteristics of the data stream. It uses capsule vectors instead of a single scalar input to effectively classify encrypted network traffic. (ii) For different network structures, a classification network structure combining convolution neural network and long short-term memory network is proposed. This structure has the characteristics of learning network traffic time and space characteristics. Experimental results show that the network model can classify encrypted traffic and does not require manual feature extraction. And on the basis of the previous tool, the recognition accuracy rate has increased by 8.Entities:
Keywords: capsule neural network; deep learning; encrypted traffic; network security; traffic classification
Year: 2021 PMID: 33815085 PMCID: PMC8018276 DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2021.648374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurorobot ISSN: 1662-5218 Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1(A) Capsule neural network structure. (B) RNN neural network structure. (C) LSTM neural network structure.
Figure 2Network traffic data packet processing process: flow division, flow filtering, uniform size and classification.
Capsule convolutional neural network.
| 1 | Condv2 | ReLU | 20*20*1 | 9*9*256 | 1 | 12*12*128 |
| 2 | Batch Norm | – | 12*12*128 | – | – | 12*12*128 |
| 3 | Inception | ReLU | 12*12*128 | – | – | 12*12*256 |
| 4 | Primary Caps | Squash | 12*12*256 | 6*6*256*8 | 2 | 4*4*8*32 |
| 5 | DigitCaps | Squash | 4*4*8*32 | – | – | 10*12 |
| 6 | Full Connect | ReLu | 10*12 | – | – | 256 |
| 7 | Full Connect | ReLU | 256 | – | – | 128 |
| 8 | Full Connect | ReLU | 128 | – | – | 64 |
| 9 | Full Connect | Softmax | 64 | – | – | 8 |
Figure 3LSTM neural network data processing process.
Figure 4Convolutional neural network and LSTM neural network joint processing model.
CNN network structure on the left.
| 1 | Condv2 | ReLU | 3*3 | 256 | 1 |
| 2 | Condv2 | ReLU | 3*3 | 128 | 1 |
| 3 | Batch Norm | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | Inception-1 | ReLU | 1*1 | 128 | 1 |
| 4 | Inception-2 | ReLU | 1*1 | 64 | 1 |
| 3*3 | |||||
| 4 | Inception-3 | – | 3*3 | 64 | 1 |
| 1*1 | |||||
| 5 | Inception-concact | – | – | – | – |
| 6 | PrimaryCaps | Squash | 6*6*256 | 8 | 2 |
| 7 | DigitCaps | Squash | – | – | – |
LSTM network structure on the right.
| 1 | Elmo-1-Forward LSTM | ReLU | 96*128 |
| 1 | Elmo-1-ReverseLSTM | ReLU | 96*128 |
| 2 | Elmo-2-Forward LSTM | ReLU | 128*128 |
| 2 | Elmo-2-Reverse LSTM | ReLU | 128*128 |
| 3 | Elmo-concact | – | – |
| 2 | Two-Way LSTM | ReLU | 128*256 |
| 3 | Batch Norm | – | – |
| 4 | Self-Attention | – | – |
| 5 | Batch Norm | – | – |
Classification layer network structure.
| 1 | Concact | – | – |
| 2 | Full Connect | ReLU | 512 |
| 3 | Full Connect | ReLU | 64 |
| 4 | Full Connect | Softmax | 7 |
Figure 5(A) The impact of data stream length on classification accuracy. (B) The impact of different loss functions on classification accuracy.
Figure 6(A) Classification results of different network traffic forms. (B) Application classification results of convolutional neural networks.
Figure 7Application classification results of LSTM neural network.
Figure 8(A) CNN-LSTM joint network application classification accuracy rate. (B) CNN-LSTM joint network application classification recall rate.
Comparison of classification performance with other traffic classification algorithms on Datasets ISCX.
| CNN-LSTM | 0.981 | 0.995 |
| C4.5 | 0.901 | 0.903 |
| SVM | 0.943 | 0.929 |
| 1dCNN | 0.933 | 0.951 |
| 2dCNN | 0.936 | 0.955 |
| Apriori | 0.931 | 0.911 |
| Naïve Bayes | 0.911 | 0.927 |
| Hmm-crf | 0.955 | 0.967 |
Comparison of classification performance with other traffic classification algorithms on datasets UNIBS.
| LSTM | 0.945 | 0.973 |
| SVM | 0.959 | 0.953 |
| Multi-classifier | 0.924 | 0.971 |
| Random forest | 0.936 | 0.992 |
| Xgboost | 0.931 | 0.961 |
| CNN-LSTM | 0.986 | 0.987 |