Cited by 20Network Security and Intrusion DetectionNetwork Packet Processing and OptimizationArtificial Immune Systems Applications

IDS alerts classification using knowledge-based evaluation

Gupta, Dheeraj, Joshi, P.S., Bhattacharjee, A.K., Mundada, R.S.·2012·2012 Fourth International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS 2012)

Abstract

Most organizations deploy Signature based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) to monitor network activities for signs of security violations and these systems generate alerts whenever a known intrusion signature is detected in the network traffic. However, IDSs are known for generating many alerts, most of them being false. This makes the job of security analyst tougher as he/she has to sift through security events to filter out relevant alerts. In this process, the high priority alerts are not addressed quickly and there is a great risk of a legitimate attack going unnoticed. Many researchers have suggested various means of classifying the IDS alerts. A potentially useful candidate is to use network contextual information to segregate relevant and non-relevant alerts. In this paper we describe PIKE, Post-processor for IDS alerts using Knowledge-based Evaluation, a system that uses background information about the hosts present on the network and the vulnerability exploited to generate a score for each alert. The score is measure of the importance of the alert. A simple binary classifier then classifies the alert as relevant or irrelevant based on value of score threshold. PIKE makes the life of security analyst simpler by presenting the classified alerts which allows him/her to focus solely on the important alerts. We evaluate PIKE for a custom dataset and demonstrate the effectiveness of using contextual sensitivity as a basis of classification.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/comsnets.2012.6151339

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, D., Joshi, P. S., Bhattacharjee, A. K., & Mundada, R. S.
Affiliations
  • Homi Bhabha National Institute (IN)
  • Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (IN)
Venue
2012 Fourth International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS 2012)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2012-01
Pages
1-8
OpenAlex
W2019454925
Cited by
20
References
21
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.61
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Network Packet Processing and Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Artificial Immune Systems Applications
Keywords
intrusion detection systems, false positive alerts, alert prioritization, vulnerability exploitation, security analyst workload, pike

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