| Literature DB >> 35808425 |
Asima Sarwar1, Abdullah M Alnajim2, Safdar Nawaz Khan Marwat1, Salman Ahmed1, Saleh Alyahya3, Waseem Ullah Khan1.
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) supports human endeavors by creating smart environments. Although the IoT has enabled many human comforts and enhanced business opportunities, it has also opened the door to intruders or attackers who can exploit the technology, either through attacks or by eluding it. Hence, security and privacy are the key concerns for IoT networks. To date, numerous intrusion detection systems (IDS) have been designed for IoT networks, using various optimization techniques. However, with the increase in data dimensionality, the search space has expanded dramatically, thereby posing significant challenges to optimization methods, including particle swarm optimization (PSO). In light of these challenges, this paper proposes a method called improved dynamic sticky binary particle swarm optimization (IDSBPSO) for feature selection, introducing a dynamic search space reduction strategy and a number of dynamic parameters to enhance the searchability of sticky binary particle swarm optimization (SBPSO). Through this approach, an IDS was designed to detect malicious data traffic in IoT networks. The proposed model was evaluated using two IoT network datasets: IoTID20 and UNSW-NB15. It was observed that in most cases, IDSBPSO obtained either higher or similar accuracy even with less number of features. Moreover, IDSBPSO substantially reduced computational cost and prediction time, compared with conventional PSO-based feature selection methods.Entities:
Keywords: Internet of Things; IoT security; anomaly detection; intrusion detection system
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808425 PMCID: PMC9269715 DOI: 10.3390/s22134926
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Potential IoT applications.
Figure 2Flowchart for the IDSBPSO.
Figure 3Working architecture of enhanced IDS, using IDSBPSO.
Features of the IoTID20 dataset.
| Flow ID | Src IP | Src Port |
| Dst IP | Dst Port | Protocol |
| Timestamp | Flow Duration | Tot Fwd Pkts |
| Tot Bwd Pkts | TotLen Bwd Pkts | TotLen Fwd Pkts |
| Fwd Pkt Len Min | Fwd Pkt Len Max | Fwd Pkt Len Mean |
| Fwd Pkt Len Std | Bwd Pkt Len Max | Bwd Pkt Len Min |
| Bwd Pkt Len Mean | Bwd Pkt Len Std | Active Min |
| Active Max | Idle Mean | Idle Max |
| Fwd IAT Tot | Fwd IAT Mean | Fwd IAT Std |
| Fwd IAT Max | Fwd IAT Min | Bwd IAT Tot |
| Bwd IAT Mean | Bwd IAT Std | Bwd IAT Max |
| Bwd IAT Min | Fwd PSH Flags | Bwd PSH Flags |
| Fwd URG Flags | Bwd URG Flags | Bwd Header Len |
| Fwd Header Len | Fwd Pkts/s | Bwd Pkts/s |
| Pkts Len Min | Pkts Len Max | Pkt Len Mean |
| Pkt Len Std | Pkt Len Var | FIN Flag Cnt |
| Active Std | SYN Flag Cnt | RST Flag Cnt |
| PSH Flag Cnt | ACK Flag Cnt | URG Flag Cnt |
| CWE Flag Count | ECE Flag Cnt | Down/Up Ratio |
| Pkt Size Avg | Fwd Seg Size Avg | Bwd Seg Size Avg |
| Fwd Bytes/b Avg | Fwd Pkts/b Avg | Fwd Blk Rate Avg |
| Bwd Bytes/b Avg | Fwd Pkts/b Avg | Bwd Blk Rate Avg |
| Subflow Fwd Bytes | Subflow Bwd Bytes | Subflow Fwd Bytes |
| Subflow Fwd Bytes | Init Fwd Win Bytes | Init Bwd Win Bytes hline |
| Fwd Act Data Pkts | Fwd Seg Size Min | Active Mean |
| Idle Std | Idle Max | - |
Attack categories on the IoTID20 dataset.
| Scan | Mirai | DoS | MITM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Host Port OS | Brute Force, HTTP Flooding, UDP Flooding | Syn Flooding | ARP Spoofing |
Features of UNSW-NB15 dataset.
| dur | proto | service |
| state | spkts | dpkts |
| sbytes | dbytes | rate |
| sttl | dttl | sload |
| dload | sloss | dloss |
| sinpkt | dinpkt | sjit |
| djit | swin | stcpb |
| dtcpb | dwin | tcprtt |
| synack | ackdat | smean |
| dmean | trans_depth | response_body_len |
| ct_srv_src | ct_state_ttl | ct_dst_ltm |
| ct_src_dport_ltm | ct_dst_sport_ltm | ct_dst_src_ltm |
| is_ftp_login | ct_ftp_cmd | ct_flw_htp_mthd |
| ct_src_ltm | ct_srv_dst | is_sm_ips_ports |
Attack categories of UNSW-NB15.
| Generic | Exploits | Fuzzers |
| DoS | Reconnaissance | Analysis |
| Backdoor | Shellcode | Worms |
Binary classification of normal and malicious traffic.
| Traffic Category | AC | PR | RC | F1S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
|
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Figure 4Confusion matrix for binary classification. (a) IoTID20 dataset; (b) UNSW-NB15 dataset.
Figure 5Convergence curve for binary classification. (a) IoTID20 dataset; (b) UNSW-NB15 dataset.
Category classification of different attacks.
| Traffic Category | AC | PR | RC | F1S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
| 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.92 |
|
| 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.34 |
|
| 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.94 |
|
| 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.96 |
|
| 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
|
| 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.98 |
|
| 0.65 | 0.73 | 0.56 | 0.64 |
|
| 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.85 |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 |
|
| 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
|
| 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.34 | 0.37 |
|
| 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.73 |
|
| 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.84 |
|
| 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
|
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
| 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.81 |
|
| 0.60 | 0.64 | 0.56 | 0.60 |
|
| 0.25 | 0.67 | 0.15 | 0.25 |
Figure 6Confusion matrix for the multiclass classification of IoTID20.
Figure 7Confusion matrix for the multiclass classification of UNSW-NB15.
Figure 8Convergence curve for multiclass classification. (a) IoTID20 dataset; (b) UNSW-NB15 dataset.
Figure 9No. of selected features out of total features of IoTID20 and UNSW-NB15.
Figure 10Prediction time (min) for IoTID20 and UNSW-NB15. (a) Binary classification; (b) Category classification.
Results of the evaluation of binary classification.
| Method | AC | FS | Computation Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| 99.80% | 30 | 5.2 |
|
| 99.84% | 29 | 5.2 |
|
| 95.20% | 34 | 5.8 |
|
| 98.35% | 32 | 5.4 |
|
| 91.00% | 25 | 5.0 |
|
| 86.56% | 39 | 5.1 |
|
| 99.84% | 30 |
|
|
| |||
|
| 99.99% | 17 | 42 |
|
| 99.99% | 21 | 39 |
|
| 98.43% | 24 | 35 |
|
| 99.90% | 18 | 33 |
|
| 87.64% | 14 |
|
|
| 85.00% | 29 | 34 |
|
| 99.95% | 13 | 32 |
Results of the evaluation of category classification.
| Method | AC | FS | Computation Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| 79.12% | 42 | 6.4 |
|
| 79.00% | 34 | 6.1 |
|
| 78.46% | 40 | 6.4 |
|
| 79.03% | 38 | 6.3 |
|
| 62.00% | 30 |
|
|
| 60.89% | 45 | 6.1 |
|
| 78.46% | 37 | 6.0 |
|
| |||
|
| 89.72% | 19 | 45.3 |
|
| 89.57% | 19 | 38.7 |
|
| 86.90% | 23 | 30.6 |
|
| 89.56% | 21 | 29.9 |
|
| 79.45% | 19 |
|
|
| 75.00% | 25 | 28.2 |
|
| 89.52% | 21 | 29.6 |