A deep‐learning‐ and reinforcement‐learning‐based system for encrypted network malicious traffic detection
Open accessAbstract
Traditional network intrusion detection methods lack the ability of automatic feature extraction for encrypted network malicious traffic, and thus, the detection rates are low. Moreover, the means of this malicious traffic are concealed, and the key malicious features are usually hidden in many normal data packets, so fewer encrypted malicious traffic samples can be captured. This easily leads to insufficient system training, low detection rate, and high false alarm rate. This letter proposes an encrypted network malicious traffic detection model based on deep learning, in which automatic feature extraction is performed against encrypted network malicious traffic. The proposed model has self‐learning and self‐adaption abilities. Furthermore, a sample generation method of encrypted traffic based on deep Q ‐networks and deep convolution generative adversarial networks is proposed, in which new samples are learned from the training samples of encrypted traffic and solves problems, such as insufficient original training samples and unbalanced samples. In a validation experiment, the proposed model could distinguish between normal and abnormal encrypted network traffic, and the accuracy rate reached 99.94%. Experimental results show that the proposed model in this letter can provide a new and better solution for an encrypted network malicious traffic detection system.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Manual root-cause analysis takes 15 to 25 minutes per event.
“This is usually 15 to 25 minutes per event [4].”
From AI-Enhanced Anomaly Detection and Automated Root-Cause Analysis for Enterprise Data Platforms (2026) · cites this paper as [4]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ji, I. H., Lee, J. H., Kang, M. J., Park, W. J., Jeon, S. H., & Seo, J. T. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24030898 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
AI-Enhanced Anomaly Detection and Automated Root-Cause Analysis for Enterprise Data Platforms
Matla, R. K. (2026) · 2026 5th International Conference on Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning (ICSADL) · doi:10.1109/icsadl67539.2026.11451830 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yang, J., Liang, G., Li, B., Wen, G., & Gao, T.
- Affiliations
- Sichuan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Liang, Gang
- Venue
- Electronics Letters
- Published
- 2021-02-23
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 363-365
- ISSN
- 0013-5194 (ISSN-L)
- 1350-911X
- OpenAlex
- W3133385739
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 1.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Electronics Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61872254)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Network Packet Processing and Optimization
- Keywords
- encrypted traffic, malicious traffic detection, network intrusion detection, automatic feature extraction, deep Q-network, generative adversarial networks, synthetic sample generation, class imbalance, false alarm reduction, self-adaptive learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review