The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bayesian event classification for intrusion detection
Abstract
Intrusion detection systems (IDSs) attempt to identify attacks by comparing collected data to predefined signatures known to be malicious (misuse-based IDSs) or to a model of legal behavior (anomaly-based IDSs). Anomaly-based approaches have the advantage of being able to detect previously unknown attacks, but they suffer from the difficulty of building robust models of acceptable behavior, which may result in a large number of false alarms. Almost all current anomaly-based intrusion detection systems classify an input event as normal or anomalous by analyzing its features, utilizing a number of different models. A decision for an input event is made by aggregating the results of all employed models. We have identified two reasons for the large number of false alarms, caused by incorrect classification of events in current systems. One is the simplistic aggregation of model outputs in the decision phase. Often, only the sum of the model results is calculated and compared to a threshold. The other reason is the lack of integration of additional information into the decision process. This additional information can be related to the models, such as the confidence in a model's output, or can be extracted from external sources. To mitigate these shortcomings, we propose an event classification scheme that is based on Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks improve the aggregation of different model outputs and allow one to seamlessly incorporate additional information. Experimental results show that the accuracy of the event classification process is significantly improved using our proposed approach.
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
Adaptive, model-based monitoring for cyber attack detection
Valdes, A., & Skinner, K. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-39945-3_6 · Cited by 309
Cited by
Chandola, V., Banerjee, A., & Kumar, V. (2009) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1541880.1541882 · Cited by 11,687
A Survey of Data Mining and Machine Learning Methods for Cyber Security Intrusion Detection
Buczak, A. L., & Guven, E. (2016) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2015.2494502 · Cited by 3,332
Anomaly-based network intrusion detection: Techniques, systems and challenges
García-Teodoro, P., Díaz-Verdejo, J., Maciá-Fernández, G., & Vázquez, E. (2009) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2008.08.003 · Cited by 2,085
Pimentel, M. A. F., Clifton, D. A., Clifton, L., & Tarassenko, L. (2014) · Signal Processing · doi:10.1016/j.sigpro.2013.12.026 · Cited by 1,649
Bayesian Neural Networks for Internet Traffic Classification
Auld, T., Moore, A. W., & Gull, S. F. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2006.883010 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- Kruegel, C., Mutz, D., Robertson, W., & Valeur, F.
- Venue
- 19th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2003. Proceedings.
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2004-07-08
- Pages
- 14-23
- ISSN
- 1063-9527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104593144
- Cited by
- 344
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.08
- 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: Bayesian event classification for intrusion detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/csac.2003.1254306
- The paper
- Kruegel, C., Mutz, D., Robertson, W., & Valeur, F. (2004). Bayesian event classification for intrusion detection. 19th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2003. Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1109/csac.2003.1254306
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.