Cited by 74Network Security and Intrusion DetectionInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Artificial Intelligence-Based Anomaly Detection Technology over Encrypted Traffic: A Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Ji, Il Hwan, Lee, Ju Hyeon, Kang, Min Ji, Park, Woo Jin, Jeon, Seung Ho, Seo, Jung Taek·2024·Sensors

Abstract

As cyber-attacks increase in unencrypted communication environments such as the traditional Internet, protected communication channels based on cryptographic protocols, such as transport layer security (TLS), have been introduced to the Internet. Accordingly, attackers have been carrying out cyber-attacks by hiding themselves in protected communication channels. However, the nature of channels protected by cryptographic protocols makes it difficult to distinguish between normal and malicious network traffic behaviors. This means that traditional anomaly detection models with features from packets extracted a deep packet inspection (DPI) have been neutralized. Recently, studies on anomaly detection using artificial intelligence (AI) and statistical characteristics of traffic have been proposed as an alternative. In this review, we provide a systematic review for AI-based anomaly detection techniques over encrypted traffic. We set several research questions on the review topic and collected research according to eligibility criteria. Through the screening process and quality assessment, 30 research articles were selected with high suitability to be included in the review from the collected literature. We reviewed the selected research in terms of dataset, feature extraction, feature selection, preprocessing, anomaly detection algorithm, and performance indicators. As a result of the literature review, it was confirmed that various techniques used for AI-based anomaly detection over encrypted traffic were used. Some techniques are similar to those used for AI-based anomaly detection over unencrypted traffic, but some technologies are different from those used for unencrypted traffic.

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/s24030898

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Existing surveys primarily organize the literature along algorithmic, pipeline-oriented, or domain-specific dimensions and do not explicitly structure the ICS/CPS anomaly detection landscape according to the type of data used for detection.

    “However, they primarily organize the literature along algorithmic, pipeline-oriented, or domain-specific dimensions and do not explicitly structure the ICS/CPS anomaly detection landscape according to the type of data used for detection.”

    From AI-Based Anomaly Detection in Industrial Control and Cyber–Physical Systems: A Data-Type-Oriented Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Introduction (page not provided) describes this review as focused on encrypted traffic and organized around datasets, processing steps, algorithms, and performance indicators. The Discussion, §4.1 (page not provided), mentions ICS as an area lacking suitable datasets, but the paper does not assess how existing ICS/CPS surveys organize their literature. It therefore supports an example of a domain- and pipeline-oriented review, not the broader claim about existing surveys. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [15]UNB NSL-KDD Dataset Available online: https://www.unb.ca/cic/datasets/nsl.html (accessed on 31 December 2023)
  2. [76]Lewis R.J. An introduction to classification and regression tree (CART) analysis Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine San Francisco, CA, USA 22–25 May 2000 Citeseer Pennsylvania, PA, USA 2000

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ji, I. H., Lee, J. H., Kang, M. J., Park, W. J., Jeon, S. H., & Seo, J. T.
Affiliations
  • Gachon University (KR)
  • Department of Computer Engineering (Smart Security), Gachon University, Seongnam-si 1342, Republic of Korea
Corresponding author
Seo, Jung Taek
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-01-30
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
898
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391345033
Cited by
74
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 11
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) (RS-2023-00241376)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
encrypted traffic, network anomaly detection, artificial intelligence, Transport Layer Security, feature extraction, feature selection, network security, malicious traffic detection

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