Cited by 81Network Security and Intrusion DetectionAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsInformation and Cyber Security

Anomaly-Based Insider Threat Detection Using Deep Autoencoders

Liu, Liu, De Vel, Olivier, Chen, Chao, Zhang, Jun, Xiang, Yang·2018·2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW)

Abstract

In recent years, the malicious insider threat has become one of the most significant cyber security threats that an organisation can be subject to. Due to an insider's natural ability to evade deployed information security mechanisms such as firewalls and endpoint protections, the detection of an insider threat can be challenging. Moreover, compared to the volume of audit data that an organization collects for the purpose of intrusion/anomaly detection, the digital footprint left by a malicious insider's action can be minuscule. To detect insider threats from large and complex audit data, in this paper, we propose a detection system that implements anomaly detection using an ensemble of deep autoencoders. Each autoencoder in the ensemble is trained using a certain category of audit data, which represents a user's normal behaviour accurately. The reconstruction error obtained between the original and the decoded data is used to measure whether any behaviour is anomalous or not. After the data has been processed by the individually trained autoencoders and the respective reconstruction errors obtained, a joint decision-making mechanism is used to report a user's overall maliciousness score. Numerical experiments are conducted using a benchmark dataset for insider threat detection. Results indicate that the proposed detection system is able to detect all of the malicious insider actions with a reasonable false positive rate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icdmw.2018.00014

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

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, L., De Vel, O., Chen, C., Zhang, J., & Xiang, Y.
Affiliations
Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Venue
2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-11
Pages
39-48
ISSN
2375-9259 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914623161
Cited by
79
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.75
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
Keywords
insider threat detection, malicious insiders, anomaly detection, deep autoencoder, reconstruction error, audit data, user behavior modeling, false positive rate

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