The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluating intrusion detection systems: the 1998 DARPA off-line intrusion detection evaluation
Abstract
An intrusion detection evaluation test bed was developed which generated normal traffic similar to that on a government site containing 100's of users on 1000's of hosts. More than 300 instances of 38 different automated attacks were launched against victim UNIX hosts in seven weeks of training data and two weeks of test data. Six research groups participated in a blind evaluation and results were analyzed for probe, denial-of-service (DoS) remote-to-local (R2L), and user to root (U2R) attacks. The best systems detected old attacks included in the training data, at moderate detection rates ranging from 63% to 93% at a false alarm rate of 10 false alarms per day. Detection rates were much worse for new and novel R2L and DoS attacks included only in the test data. The best systems failed to detect roughly half these new attacks which included damaging access to root-level privileges by remote users. These results suggest that further research should focus on developing techniques to find new attacks instead of extending existing rule-based approaches.
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
Cited by
A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set
Tavallaee, M., Bagheri, E., Lu, W., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications · doi:10.1109/cisda.2009.5356528 · Cited by 5,396
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
Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods for Cybersecurity
Xin, Y., Kong, L., Liu, Z., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Zhu, H., Gao, M., Hou, H., & Wang, C. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2836950 · Cited by 1,228
Attack and anomaly detection in IoT sensors in IoT sites using machine learning approaches
Hasan, M., Islam, M. M., Zarif, M. I. I., & Hashem, M. M. A. (2019) · Internet of Things · doi:10.1016/j.iot.2019.100059 · Cited by 841
Cybersecurity data science: an overview from machine learning perspective
Sarker, I. H., Kayes, A. S. M., Badsha, S., Alqahtani, H., Watters, P., & Ng, A. (2020) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-020-00318-5 · Cited by 766
Metadata
- Authors
- Lippmann, R. P., Fried, D. J., Graf, I., Haines, J. W., Kendall, K. R., McClung, D., Weber, D., Webster, S. E., Wyschogrod, D., Cunningham, R. K., & Zissman, M. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition. DISCEX'00
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc
- Published
- 2002-11-07
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 12-26
- OpenAlex
- W1952056635
- Cited by
- 917
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.43
- 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: Evaluating intrusion detection systems: the 1998 DARPA off-line intrusion detection evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/discex.2000.821506
- The paper
- Lippmann, R. P., Fried, D. J., Graf, I., Haines, J. W., Kendall, K. R., McClung, D., Weber, D., Webster, S. E., Wyschogrod, D., Cunningham, R. K., & Zissman, M. A. (2002). Evaluating intrusion detection systems: the 1998 DARPA off-line intrusion detection evaluation. Proceedings DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition. DISCEX'00. https://doi.org/10.1109/discex.2000.821506
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.