Cited by 439Network Security and Intrusion DetectionInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingInternet of Things and AI

An experimental analysis of attack classification using machine learning in IoT networks

Open access
Churcher, Andrew, Ullah, Rehmat, Ahmad, Jawad, ur Rehman, Sadaqat, Masood, Fawad, Gogate, Mandar, Alqahtani, Fehaid, Nour, Boubakr +1 more·2021·Sensors

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a massive increase in the amount of Internet of Things (IoT) devices as well as the data generated by such devices. The participating devices in IoT networks can be problematic due to their resource-constrained nature, and integrating security on these devices is often overlooked. This has resulted in attackers having an increased incentive to target IoT devices. As the number of attacks possible on a network increases, it becomes more difficult for traditional intrusion detection systems (IDS) to cope with these attacks efficiently. In this paper, we highlight several machine learning (ML) methods such as k-nearest neighbour (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), naive Bayes (NB), random forest (RF), artificial neural network (ANN), and logistic regression (LR) that can be used in IDS. In this work, ML algorithms are compared for both binary and multi-class classification on Bot-IoT dataset. Based on several parameters such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and log loss, we experimentally compared the aforementioned ML algorithms. In the case of HTTP distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, the accuracy of RF is 99%. Furthermore, other simulation results-based precision, recall, F1 score, and log loss metric reveal that RF outperforms on all types of attacks in binary classification. However, in multi-class classification, KNN outperforms other ML algorithms with an accuracy of 99%, which is 4% higher than RF.

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 · 10.3390/s21020446

Cites

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?

  • Recent artificial intelligence developments for multiclass classification using ML are well suited to combine different connectivity modalities and methods to test the power of multiclass classification.

    “Recent artificial intelligence developments for multiclass classification (Churcher et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021; Hou et al., 2021) using ML are well suited to combine different connectivity modalities and methods to test the power of multiclass classification.”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 439

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [37]Malik M. Singh Y. A Review: DoS and DDoS Attacks Int. J. Comput. Sci. Mob. Comput. 2015 4 260 265
  2. [42]Olzak T. Keystroke Logging (Keylogging) Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228797653_Keystroke_logging_keylogging (accessed on 12 November 2020)

Authors
Churcher, A., Ullah, R., Ahmad, J., ur Rehman, S., Masood, F., Gogate, M., Alqahtani, F., Nour, B., & Buchanan, W. J.
Affiliations
  • Edinburgh Napier University (GB)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • Department of Computer Science, Namal Institute, Mianwali 42250, Pakistan
  • Yangzhou University (CN)
  • Department of Computer Science, King Fahad Naval Academy, Al Jubail 35512, Saudi Arabia
  • Beijing Institute of Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Ullah, Rehmat
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-01-10
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
446
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3120934607
Cited by
439
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
21.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Internet of Things and AI
Keywords
Internet of Things security, intrusion detection, attack classification, Bot-IoT dataset, random forest, k-nearest neighbors, multi-class classification, binary classification, resource-constrained devices

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