The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The evaluation of Network Anomaly Detection Systems: Statistical analysis of the UNSW-NB15 data set and the comparison with the KDD99 data set
Abstract
Over the last three decades, Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDSs), particularly, Anomaly Detection Systems (ADSs), have become more significant in detecting novel attacks than Signature Detection Systems (SDSs). Evaluating NIDSs using the existing benchmark data sets of KDD99 and NSLKDD does not reflect satisfactory results, due to three major issues: (1) their lack of modern low footprint attack styles, (2) their lack of modern normal traffic scenarios, and (3) a different distribution of training and testing sets. To address these issues, the UNSW-NB15 data set has recently been generated. This data set has nine types of the modern attacks fashions and new patterns of normal traffic, and it contains 49 attributes that comprise the flow based between hosts and the network packets inspection to discriminate between the observations, either normal or abnormal. In this paper, we demonstrate the complexity of the UNSW-NB15 data set in three aspects. First, the statistical analysis of the observations and the attributes are explained. Second, the examination of feature correlations is provided. Third, five existing classifiers are used to evaluate the complexity in terms of accuracy and false alarm rates (FARs) and then, the results are compared with the KDD99 data set. The experimental results show that UNSW-NB15 is more complex than KDD99 and is considered as a new benchmark data set for evaluating NIDSs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit
Massey, F. J. (1951) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1951.10500769 · Cited by 7,210
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- 10.1007/978-3-319-00930-8_19 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00930-8_19
- 10.1109/SURV.2013.052213.00046 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.310.6980.633 · DOI · Paper page
- Bouzida Y., 2006, Neural networks vs. decision trees for intrusion detection
- 10.1002/9780470140529 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10115-008-0139-1 · DOI
- Cunningham R., 2000, MIT Lincoln Laboratory–Presentation to CERIAS, 11, 29
- 10.1109/TSE.1987.232894 · DOI · Paper page
- DeWeese S., 2009, Capability of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to conduct cyber warfare and computer network exploitation
- 10.1016/j.cose.2008.08.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Hall M. A., 1998, Computer Science ’98 Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Computer Science Conference ACSC’98, 181
- 10.1016/j.patcog.2005.01.012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0167-7152(97)00020-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/biomet/57.3.519 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/382912.382923 · DOI · Paper page
- Moustafa N., 2015, Creating novel features to anomaly network detection using DARPA-2009 data set
- Moustafa N., 2015, UNSW-NB15: A comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection
- 10.1016/j.jnca.2004.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Panda M., 2007, International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 7, 258
- 10.5121/ijnsa · doi:10.5121/ijnsa
- Sharif I., 2012, Unsupervised clustering approach for network anomaly detection, networked digital technologies. In Benlamri, R., (Ed), Networked Digital Technologies
- 10.1007/11941439_114 · DOI · Paper page
- Vatis M. A., 2001, Cyber attacks during the war on terrorism: A predictive analysis, 10.21236/ADA386280 · doi:10.21236/ada386280
- 10.3233/JCS-1999-7103 · DOI · Paper page
- Witten I. H., 2005, Practical machine learning tools and techniques (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Data Management Systems)
Cited by
A GA-LR wrapper approach for feature selection in network intrusion detection
Khammassi, C., & Krichen, S. (2017) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2017.06.005 · Cited by 382
Asharf, J., Moustafa, N., Khurshid, H., Debie, E., Haider, W., & Wahab, A. (2020) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics9071177 · Cited by 378
Self-citationAshraf, J., Bakhshi, A. D., Moustafa, N., Khurshid, H., Javed, A., & Beheshti, A. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2020.3017882 · Cited by 295
Self-citationInternet of Things: Evolution, Concerns and Security Challenges
Malhotra, P., Singh, Y., Anand, P., Bangotra, D. K., Singh, P. K., & Hong, W.-C. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21051809 · Cited by 260
Deep Learning-Based Intrusion Detection for IoT Networks
Ge, M., Fu, X., Syed, N., Baig, Z., Teo, G., & Robles-Kelly, A. (2019) · 2019 IEEE 24th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC) · doi:10.1109/prdc47002.2019.00056 · Cited by 269
“An accuracy of 99.69% was reported when the scheme was tested on the NSL KDD [15] and the UNSW-NB 15 [16] datasets.”
MethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Moustafa, N., & Slay, J.
- Venue
- Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-01-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1-3
- Pages
- 18-31
- ISSN
- 1939-3547 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3555
- OpenAlex
- W2334853001
- Cited by
- 1,100
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 57.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Funders
- School of Engineering and information technology, University of New South Wales (5025758)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The evaluation of Network Anomaly Detection Systems: Statistical analysis of the UNSW-NB15 data set and the comparison with the KDD99 data set. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/19393555.2015.1125974
- The paper
- Moustafa, N., & Slay, J. (2016). The evaluation of Network Anomaly Detection Systems: Statistical analysis of the UNSW-NB15 data set and the comparison with the KDD99 data set. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393555.2015.1125974
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.