Cited by 212Network Security and Intrusion DetectionNetwork Packet Processing and OptimizationArtificial Immune Systems Applications

From intrusion detection to attacker attribution: A comprehensive survey of unsupervised methods

Open access
Nisioti, Antonia, Mylonas, Alexios, Yoo, Paul D., Katos, Vasilios·2018·IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials

Abstract

Over the last five years there has been an increase in the frequency and diversity of network attacks. This holds true, as more and more organizations admit compromises on a daily basis. Many misuse and anomaly based intrusion detection systems (IDSs) that rely on either signatures, supervised or statistical methods have been proposed in the literature, but their trustworthiness is debatable. Moreover, as this paper uncovers, the current IDSs are based on obsolete attack classes that do not reflect the current attack trends. For these reasons, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of unsupervised and hybrid methods for intrusion detection, discussing their potential in the domain. We also present and highlight the importance of feature engineering techniques that have been proposed for intrusion detection. Furthermore, we discuss that current IDSs should evolve from simple detection to correlation and attribution. We descant how IDS data could be used to reconstruct and correlate attacks to identify attackers, with the use of advanced data analytics techniques. Finally, we argue how the present IDS attack classes can be extended to match the modern attacks and propose three new classes regarding the outgoing network communication.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/comst.2018.2854724

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many existing IDS signatures are based on obsolete attack classes that do not map to modern attacks.

    “It has been found that many existing IDS signatures are based on obsolete attack classes that do not map to modern attacks.”

    From Impact, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigation Strategies for Cyber-Secure Critical Infrastructure. (2023) · cites this paper as [78]

    In “IDS attack classes,” the paper says the four traditional classes are no longer sufficient as attacks evolve. In “Detection Mechanism Classification,” it separately describes signatures as patterns of known attacks whose databases need updating. It does not say that IDS signatures are based on those obsolete classes, so the claim conflates two related limitations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Caballero, J., Grier, C., Kreibich, C., & Paxson, V. (2011, August). Measuring Pay-per-Install: The Commoditization of Malware Distribution. In Usenix security symposium (p. 15).
  2. Barbara, D., Couto, J., Jajodia, S., Popyack, L., & Wu, N. (2001). ADAM: Detecting intrusions by data mining. In In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security.
  3. Pattewar, T. M., & Sonawane, H. A. (2015, November). Neural network based intrusion detection using Bayesian with PCA and KPCA feature extraction. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Graphics, Vision and Information Security (CGVIS) (pp. 83-88). IEEE.
  4. Amoli, P. V., Hamalainen, T., David, G., Zolotukhin, M., & Mirzamohammad, M. (2016). Unsupervised Network Intrusion Detection Systems for Zero-Day Fast-Spreading Attacks and Botnets. JDCTA (International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, Volume 10 Issue 2, 1-13.
  5. Bhuyan, M. H., Bhattacharyya, D. K., & Kalita, J. K. (2011, February). NADO: network anomaly detection using outlier approach. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Communication, Computing & Security (pp. 531-536). ACM.
  6. Hosseinpour, F., Amoli, P. V., Farahnakian, F., Plosila, J., & Hämäläinen, T. (2014). Artificial immune system based intrusion detection: Innate immunity using an unsupervised learning approach. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 8(5), 1.
  7. ISCX NSL-KDD dataset: http://www.unb.ca/research/iscx/dataset/iscx- NSL-KDD-dataset.html
  8. Catania, C. A., & Garino, C. G. (2012). Automatic network intrusion detection: Current techniques and open issues. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 38(5), 1062-1072.
  9. Zhu, B., & Sastry, S. (2010, April). SCADA-specific intrusion detection/prevention systems: a survey and taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Secure Control Systems (SCS).
  10. A. Moore, D. Zuev, M. Crogan, Discriminators for use in flow-based classification, Technical Report, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nisioti, A., Mylonas, A., Yoo, P. D., & Katos, V.
Affiliations
  • Bournemouth University (GB)
  • Cranfield University (GB)
Venue
IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
Published
2018
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
3369-3388
ISSN
  • 1553-877X (ISSN-L)
  • 2373-745X
OpenAlex
W2870670057
Cited by
212
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 1
FWCI
12.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials (publishedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
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, unsupervised learning, anomaly detection, signature-based detection, feature engineering, network security, attack classification, hybrid intrusion detection

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