The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fast portscan detection using sequential hypothesis testing
Abstract
Attackers routinely perform random portscans of IP addresses to find vulnerable servers to compromise. Network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) attempt to detect such behavior and flag these portscanners as malicious. An important need in such systems is prompt response: the sooner a NIDS detects malice, the lower the resulting damage. At the same time, a NIDS should not falsely implicate benign remote hosts as malicious. Balancing the goals of promptness and accuracy in detecting malicious scanners is a delicate and difficult task. We develop a connection between this problem and the theory of sequential hypothesis testing and show that one can model accesses to local IP addresses as a random walk on one of two stochastic processes, corresponding respectively to the access patterns of benign remote hosts and malicious ones. The detection problem then becomes one of observing a particular trajectory and inferring from it the most likely classification for the remote host. We use this insight to develop TRW (Threshold Random Walk), an online detection algorithm that identifies malicious remote hosts. Using an analysis of traces from two qualitatively different sites, we show that TRW requires a much smaller number of connection attempts (4 or 5 in practice) to detect malicious activity compared to previous schemes, while also providing theoretical bounds on the low (and configurable) probabilities of missed detection and false alarms. In summary, TRW performs significantly faster and also more accurately than other current solutions.
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
Bro: a system for detecting network intruders in real-time
Paxson, V. (1999) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/s1389-1286(99)00112-7 · Cited by 2,636
Self-citation
Cited by
NOX: towards an operating system for networks
Gude, N., Koponen, T., Pettit, J., Pfaff, B., Casado, M., McKeown, N., & Shenker, S. (2008) · ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review · doi:10.1145/1384609.1384625 · Cited by 1,446
Attacks against process control systems: risk assessment, detection, and response
Cárdenas, A. A., Amin, S., Lin, Z.-S., Huang, Y.-L., Huang, C.-Y., & Sastry, S. (2011) · Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/1966913.1966959 · Cited by 699
(2008) · Cited by 577
The monitoring and early detection of Internet worms
Zou, C. C., Gong, W., Towsley, D., & Gao, L. (2005) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · doi:10.1109/tnet.2005.857113 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Jung, J., Paxson, V., Berger, A. W., & Balakrishnan, H.
- Venue
- IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2004. Proceedings. 2004
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2004-06-10
- Pages
- 211-225
- ISSN
- 1081-6011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1744212210
- Cited by
- 660
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.39
- 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: Fast portscan detection using sequential hypothesis testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/secpri.2004.1301325
- The paper
- Jung, J., Paxson, V., Berger, A. W., & Balakrishnan, H. (2004). Fast portscan detection using sequential hypothesis testing. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2004. Proceedings. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1109/secpri.2004.1301325
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.