The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An analysis of Recurrent Neural Networks for Botnet detection behavior
Abstract
A Botnet can be conceived as a group of compromised computers which can be controlled remotely to execute coordinated attacks or commit fraudulent acts. The fact that Botnets keep continuously evolving means that traditional detection approaches are always one step behind. Recently, the behavior analysis of network traffic has arisen as a way to tackle the Botnet detection problem. The behavioral analysis approach aims to look at the common patterns that Botnets follow across their life cycle, trying to generalize in order to become capable of detecting unseen Botnet traffic. This work provides an analysis of the viability of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) to detect the behavior of network traffic by modeling it as a sequence of states that change over time. The recent success applying RNN to sequential data problems makes them a viable candidate on the task of sequence behavior analysis. The performance of a RNN is evaluated considering two main issues, the imbalance of network traffic and the optimal length of sequences. Both issues have a great impact in potentially real-life implementation. Evaluation is performed using a stratified k-fold cross validation and an independent test is conducted on not previously seen traffic belonging to a different Botnet. Preliminary results reveal that the RNN is capable of classifying the traffic with a high attack detection rate and an very small false alarm rate, which makes it a potential candidate for implementation and deployment on real-world scenarios. However, experiments exposed the fact that RNN detection models have problems for dealing with traffic behaviors not easily differentiable as well as some particular cases of imbalanced network traffic.
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
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Cited by
Deep Learning in Mobile and Wireless Networking: A Survey
Zhang, C., Patras, P., & Haddadi, H. (2019) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2904897 · Cited by 1,768
A Survey of Machine and Deep Learning Methods for Internet of Things (IoT) Security
Al-Garadi, M. A., Mohamed, A., Al-Ali, A. K., Du, X., Ali, I., & Guizani, M. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2020.2988293 · Cited by 1,392
Wang, W., Sheng, Y., Wang, J., Zeng, X., Ye, X., Huang, Y., & Zhu, M. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2780250 · Cited by 655
A Survey of Deep Learning Methods for Cyber Security
Berman, D. S., Buczak, A. L., Chavis, J. S., & Corbett, C. L. (2019) · Information · doi:10.3390/info10040122 · Cited by 569
BAT: Deep Learning Methods on Network Intrusion Detection Using NSL-KDD Dataset
Su, T., Sun, H., Zhu, J., Wang, S., & Li, Y. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2972627 · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Authors
- Torres, P., Catania, C., Garcia, S., & Garino, C. G.
- Venue
- 2016 IEEE Biennial Congress of Argentina (ARGENCON)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-06
- Pages
- 1-6
- OpenAlex
- W2528827134
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.60
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: An analysis of Recurrent Neural Networks for Botnet detection behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/argencon.2016.7585247
- The paper
- Torres, P., Catania, C., Garcia, S., & Garino, C. G. (2016). An analysis of Recurrent Neural Networks for Botnet detection behavior. 2016 IEEE Biennial Congress of Argentina (ARGENCON). https://doi.org/10.1109/argencon.2016.7585247
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.