skip to main content

Title: A Transfer Learning with Deep Neural Network Approach for Network Intrusion Detection
Traditional Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) encounter difficulties due to the exponential growth of network traffic data and modern attacks' requirements. This paper presents a novel network intrusion classification framework using transfer learning from the VGG-16 pre-trained model. The framework extracts feature leveraging pre-trained weights trained on the ImageNet dataset in the initial step, and finally, applies a deep neural network to the extracted features for intrusion classification. We applied the presented framework on NSL-KDD, a benchmark dataset for network intrusion, to evaluate the proposed framework's performance. We also implemented other pre-trained models such as VGG19, MobileNet, ResNet-50, and Inception V3 to evaluate and compare performance. This paper also displays both binary classification (normal vs. attack) and multi-class classification (classifying types of attacks) for network intrusion detection. The experimental results show that feature extraction using VGG-16 outperforms other pre-trained models producing better accuracy, precision, recall, and false alarm rates.
Authors:
Editors:
Ayahiko Niimi, Future University-Hakodate
Award ID(s):
1723578
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10273194
Journal Name:
International journal of intellligent computing research
Volume:
12
Issue:
1
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1087-1095
ISSN:
2042-4655
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Network intrusion detection systems (NIDSs) play an essential role in the defense of computer networks by identifying a computer networks' unauthorized access and investigating potential security breaches. Traditional NIDSs encounters difficulties to combat newly created sophisticated and unpredictable security attacks. Hence, there is an increasing need for automatic intrusion detection solution that can detect malicious activities more accurately and prevent high false alarm rates (FPR). In this paper, we propose a novel network intrusion detection framework using a deep neural network based on the pretrained VGG-16 architecture. The framework, TL-NID (Transfer Learning for Network Intrusion Detection), is a two-step process where features are extracted in the first step, using VGG-16 pre-trained on ImageNet dataset and in the 2 nd step a deep neural network is applied to the extracted features for classification. We applied TL-NID on NSL-KDD, a benchmark dataset for network intrusion, to evaluate the performance of the proposed framework. The experimental results show that our proposed method can effectively learn from the NSL-KDD dataset with producing a realistic performance in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and false alarm. This study also aims to motivate security researchers to exploit different state-of-the-art pre-trained models for network intrusion detection problems throughmore »valuable knowledge transfer.« less
  2. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less
  3. Network intrusion detection systems (IDS) has efficiently identified the profiles of normal network activities, extracted intrusion patterns, and constructed generalized models to evaluate (un)known attacks using a wide range of machine learning approaches. In spite of the effectiveness of machine learning-based IDS, it has been still challenging to reduce high false alarms due to data misclassification. In this paper, by using multiple decision mechanisms, we propose a new classification method to identify misclassified data and then to classify them into three different classes, called a malicious, benign, and ambiguous dataset. In other words, the ambiguous dataset contains a majority of the misclassified dataset and is thus the most informative for improving the model and anomaly detection because of the lack of confidence for the data classification in the model. We evaluate our approach with the recent real-world network traffic data, Kyoto2006+ datasets, and show that the ambiguous dataset contains 77.2% of the previously misclassified data. Re-evaluating the ambiguous dataset effectively reduces the false prediction rate with minimal overhead and improves accuracy by 15%.
  4. Network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) today must quickly provide visibility into anomalous behavior on a growing amount of data. Meanwhile different data models have evolved over time, each providing a different set of features to classify attacks. Defenders have limited time to retrain classifiers, while the scale of data and feature mismatch between data models can affect the ability to periodically retrain. Much work has focused on classification accuracy yet feature selection is a key part of machine learning that, when optimized, reduces the training time and can increase accuracy by removing poorly performing features that introduce noise. With a larger feature space, the pursuit of more features is not as valuable as selecting better features. In this paper, we use an ensemble approach of filter methods to rank features followed by a voting technique to select a subset of features. We evaluate our approach using three datasets to show that, across datasets and network topologies, similar features have a trivial effect on classifier accuracy after removal. Our approach identifies poorly performing features to remove in a classifier-agnostic manner that can significantly save time for periodic retraining of production NIDS.
  5. Remanufacturing sites often receive products with different brands, models, conditions, and quality levels. Proper sorting and classification of the waste stream is a primary step in efficiently recovering and handling used products. The correct classification is particularly crucial in future electronic waste (e-waste) management sites equipped with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotic technologies. Robots should be enabled with proper algorithms to recognize and classify products with different features and prepare them for assembly and disassembly tasks. In this study, two categories of Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques are used to classify consumer electronics. ML models include Naïve Bayes with Bernoulli, Gaussian, Multinomial distributions, and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms with four kernels of Linear, Radial Basis Function (RBF), Polynomial, and Sigmoid. While DL models include VGG16, GoogLeNet, Inception-v3, Inception-v4, and ResNet-50. The above-mentioned models are used to classify three laptop brands, including Apple, HP, and ThinkPad. First, the Edge Histogram Descriptor (EHD) and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) are used to extract features as inputs to ML models for classification. DL models use laptop images without pre-processing on feature extraction. The trained models are slightly overfitting due to the limited dataset and complexity of model parameters. Despitemore »slight overfitting, the models can identify each brand. The findings prove that DL models outperform ML. Among DL models, GoogLeNet has the highest performance in identifying the laptop brands.« less