CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 45Network Security and Intrusion DetectionIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Exploring Edge TPU for Network Intrusion Detection in IoT

Open access
Hosseininoorbin, Seyedehfaezeh, Layeghy, Siamak, Sarhan, Mohanad, Jurdak, Raja, Portmann, Marius·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2103.16295arXiv 2103.16295
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper explores Google's Edge TPU for implementing a practical network intrusion detection system (NIDS) at the edge of IoT, based on a deep learning approach. While there are a significant number of related works that explore machine learning based NIDS for the IoT edge, they generally do not consider the issue of the required computational and energy resources. The focus of this paper is the exploration of deep learning-based NIDS at the edge of IoT, and in particular the computational and energy efficiency. In particular, the paper studies Google's Edge TPU as a hardware platform, and considers the following three key metrics: computation (inference) time, energy efficiency and the traffic classification performance. Various scaled model sizes of two major deep neural network architectures are used to investigate these three metrics. The performance of the Edge TPU-based implementation is compared with that of an energy efficient embedded CPU (ARM Cortex A53). Our experimental evaluation shows some unexpected results, such as the fact that the CPU significantly outperforms the Edge TPU for small model sizes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2103.16295

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.

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?

  • Customized TinyML devices can attain performance in the one micro Joule per inference level.

    “These customized devices can attain performance in the one micro Joule per inference level, pushing the limits of machine learning to the ultra-low power end of TinyML processors.[48]”

    From A Comprehensive Survey on TinyML (2023) · cites this paper as [48]

    Section 4.2.1 (p. 8) describes the Edge TPU as a purpose-built ML accelerator with a low energy footprint, and Section 5.1.3 (p. 12) evaluates energy efficiency per inference. But the passages do not establish the claimed one-microjoule-per-inference level or characterize the devices as ultra-low-power TinyML processors; the paper’s 1 mJ figure is an energy budget used to define its efficiency measure, not energy per inference. (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.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [2][2] C. Wisultschew, A. Otero, J. Portilla, E. de la Torre, Artificial vision on edge iot devices: A practical case for 3d data classification, in: 2019 34th Conference on Design of Circuits and Integrated Systems (DCIS), 2019, pp. 1-7. doi:10.1109/DCIS201949030.2019.8959857 . - · DOI
  2. [3][3] Y. Hui, et al., Early experience in benchmarking edge ai processors with object detection workloads, in: International Symposium on Benchmarking, Measuring and Optimization, 2020, pp. 32-48. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-030-49556-5\_3 . -
  3. [4][4] A. Reuther, et al., Survey and benchmarking of machine learning accelerators, in: 2019 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), 2019, pp. 1-9. -
  4. [5][5] A. Alsaedi, N. Moustafa, A. M. Z. Tari, A. Anwar, TON IoT telemetry dataset: A new generation dataset of iot and iiot for data-driven intrusion detection systems, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 165130-165150. doi:10.1109/ ACCESS.2020.3022862 . -
  5. [6][6] A. S. Almogren, Intrusion detection in Edge-of-Things computing, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 137 (2020) 259-265. doi:10.1016/ j.jpdc.2019.12.008 . -
  6. [7][7] N. Moustafa, J. Slay, Unsw-nb15: a comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection systems (unsw-nb15 network data set), in: 2015 military communications and information systems conference (MilCIS), IEEE, 2015, pp. 1-6. -
  7. [8][8] S. Otoum, B. Kantarci, H. T. Mouftah, On the Feasibility of Deep Learning in Sensor Network Intrusion Detection, IEEE Networking Letters 1 (2) (2019) 68-71. doi:10.1109/LNET.2019.2901792 . - · DOI
  8. [9][9] S. Hettich, Kdd cup 1999 data, The UCI KDD Archive. -
  9. [10][10] M. Eskandari, Z. H. Janjua, M. Vecchio, F. Antonelli, Passban ids: An intelligent anomaly-based intrusion detection system for iot edge devices, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7 (8) (2020) 6882-6897. doi:10.1109/ JIOT.2020.2970501 . -
  10. [11][11] A. Frumusanu, et al., Arm a53/a57/t760 investigated -samsung galaxy note 4 exynos review, https://www.anandtech.com/show/8718/ the-samsung-galaxy-note-4-exynos-review/4 (2015). -
  11. [12][12] I. Hafeez, M. Antikainen, A. Y. Ding, S. Tarkoma, Iot-keeper: Detecting malicious iot network activity using online traffic analysis at the edge, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 17 (1) (2020) 45-59. doi:10.1109/TNSM.2020.2966951 . - · DOI
  12. [13][13] Y. Mirsky, T. Doitshman, Y. Elovici, A. Shabtai, Kitsune: An ensemble of autoencoders for online network intrusion detection, ArXiv abs/1802.09089. - · arXiv
  13. [14][14] M. Miettinen, S. Marchal, I. Hafeez, N. Asokan, A.-R. Sadeghi, S. Tarkoma, IoT SENTINEL: Automated Device-Type Identification for Security Enforcement in IoT, in: 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 2177-2184. doi: 10.1109/ICDCS.2017.283 . - · DOI
  14. [15][15] S. U. Jan, S. Ahmed, V. Shakhov, I. Koo, Toward a lightweight intrusion detection system for the internet of things, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 4245042471. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2907965 . - · DOI
  15. [16][16] I. Sharafaldin, A. H. Lashkari, A. A. Ghorbani, Toward generating a new intrusion detection dataset and intrusion traffic characterization., in: ICISSp, 2018, pp. 108-116. -
  16. [18][18] N. Koroniotis, N. Moustafa, E. Sitnikova, B. Turnbull, Towards the development of realistic botnet dataset in the Internet of Things for network forensic analytics: Bot-IoT dataset, Future Generation Computer Systems 100 (2019) 779-796. doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.05.041 . - · DOI · Paper page
  17. [19][19] M. Roopak, G. Y. Tian, J. Chambers, An intrusion detection system against ddos attacks in iot networks, in: 2020 10th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), IEEE, 2020, pp. 0562-0567. -
  18. [20][20] P. V. Huong, L. D. Thuan, L. T. Hong Van, D. V. Hung, Intrusion Detection in IoT Systems Based on Deep Learning Using Convolutional Neural Network, in: 2019 6th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science (NICS), IEEE, 2019, pp. 448-453. doi:10.1109/NICS48868. 2019.9023871 . - · DOI
  19. [21][21] S.-N. Nguyen, V.-Q. Nguyen, J. Choi, K. Kim, Design and implementation of intrusion detection system using convolutional neural network for dos detection, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing, ICMLSC '18, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018, p. 34-38. doi:10.1145/3184066. 3184089 . - · DOI
  20. [22][22] L. Mohammadpour, T. C. Ling, C. S. Liew, C. Y. Chong, A convolutional neural network for network intrusion detection system, Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Advanced Network 46 (2018) 50-55. -
  21. [23][23] R. Vinayakumar, K. P. Soman, P. Poornachandran, Applying convolutional neural network for network intrusion detection, in: 2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1222-1228. doi:10.1109/ICACCI.2017. 8126009 . - · DOI
  22. [24][24] N. P. Jouppi, et al., In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit, in: Proceedings of the 44th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA '17, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017, p. 1-12. doi:10.1145/3079856.3080246 . - · DOI · Paper page
  23. [26][26] S. Hosseininoorbin, S. Layeghy, B. Kusy, R. Jurdak, , M. Portmann, Scaling spectrogram data representation for deep learning on edge tpu, in: the fifth IEEE International Workshop on Smart and Green Edge Computing and Networking (SmartEdge) @ Percom, Kessel, Germany, 2021, (ACCEPTED).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hosseininoorbin, S., Layeghy, S., Sarhan, M., Jurdak, R., & Portmann, M.
Affiliations
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Hosseininoorbin, Seyedehfaezeh
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Volume
179
Pages
104712-104712
ISSN
0743-7315 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2103.16295
arXiv
2103.16295
OpenAlex
W3143394933
Cited by
45
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Network Packet Processing and Optimization
Keywords
Edge TPU, network intrusion detection, IoT edge computing, deep learning, energy efficiency, inference latency, network traffic classification, model size scaling, ARM Cortex-A53, hardware acceleration

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