Advertisement

The VLDB Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 507–521 | Cite as

A new intrusion detection system using support vector machines and hierarchical clustering

  • Latifur Khan
  • Mamoun Awad
  • Bhavani Thuraisingham
Regular Paper

Abstract

Whenever an intrusion occurs, the security and value of a computer system is compromised. Network-based attacks make it difficult for legitimate users to access various network services by purposely occupying or sabotaging network resources and services. This can be done by sending large amounts of network traffic, exploiting well-known faults in networking services, and by overloading network hosts. Intrusion Detection attempts to detect computer attacks by examining various data records observed in processes on the network and it is split into two groups, anomaly detection systems and misuse detection systems. Anomaly detection is an attempt to search for malicious behavior that deviates from established normal patterns. Misuse detection is used to identify intrusions that match known attack scenarios. Our interest here is in anomaly detection and our proposed method is a scalable solution for detecting network-based anomalies. We use Support Vector Machines (SVM) for classification. The SVM is one of the most successful classification algorithms in the data mining area, but its long training time limits its use. This paper presents a study for enhancing the training time of SVM, specifically when dealing with large data sets, using hierarchical clustering analysis. We use the Dynamically Growing Self-Organizing Tree (DGSOT) algorithm for clustering because it has proved to overcome the drawbacks of traditional hierarchical clustering algorithms (e.g., hierarchical agglomerative clustering). Clustering analysis helps find the boundary points, which are the most qualified data points to train SVM, between two classes. We present a new approach of combination of SVM and DGSOT, which starts with an initial training set and expands it gradually using the clustering structure produced by the DGSOT algorithm. We compare our approach with the Rocchio Bundling technique and random selection in terms of accuracy loss and training time gain using a single benchmark real data set. We show that our proposed variations contribute significantly in improving the training process of SVM with high generalization accuracy and outperform the Rocchio Bundling technique.

Keywords

Support Vector Machine Support Vector Training Time Anomaly Detection Reference Vector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, D.K.: Shrinkage estimator generalizations of proximal support vector machines, In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 173–182. Edmonton, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, D., Frivold, T., Valdes, A.: Next-generation intrusion detection expert system (NIDES): a summary. Technical Report SRI-CSL-95-07. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (May 1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelsson, S.: Research in intrusion detection systems: a survey. Technical Report TR 98-17 (revised in 1999). Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balcazar, J.L., Dai, Y., Watanabe, O.: A random sampling technique for training support vector machines for primal-form maximal-margin classifiers, algorithmic learning theory. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, ALT 2001, p. 119. Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bivens, A., Palagiri, C., Smith, R., Szymanski, B., Embrechts, M.: Intelligent engineering systems through artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of the ANNIE-2002, vol. 12, pp. 579–584. ASME Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Branch, J., Bivens, A., Chan, C.-Y., Lee, T.-K., Szymanski, B.: Denial of service intrusion detection using time dependent deterministic finite automata. In: Proceedings of the Research Conference. RPI, Troy, NY (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cannady, J.: Artificial neural networks for misuse detection. In: Proceedings of the National Information Systems Security Conference (NISSC98), pp. 443–456. Arlington, VA (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cauwenberghs, G., Poggio, T.: Incremental and decremental support vector machine learning. In: Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 409–415. Vancouver, Canada (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Debar, H., Dacier, M., Wespi, A.: A revised taxonomy for intrusion detection systems. Ann. Télécommun. 55(7/8), 361–378 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denning, D.E.: An intrusion detection model. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 13(2), 222–232 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dopazo, J., Carazo, J.M.: Phylogenetic reconstruction using an unsupervised growing neural network that adopts the topology of a phylogenetic tree. J. Mol. Evol. 44, 226–233 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forras, P.A., Neumann, F.G.: EMERALD: event monitoring enabling response to anomalous live disturbances. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Information Systems Security Conference, pp. 353–365 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freeman, S., Bivens, A., Branch, J., Szymanski, B.: Host-based intrusion detection using user signatures. In: Proceedings of the Research Conference. RPI, Troy, NY (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feng, G., Mangasarian, O.L.: Semi-supervised support vector machines for unlabeled data classification. Optimization Methods Software 15, 29–44 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghosh, A., Schwartzbard, A., Shatz, M.: Learning program behavior profiles for intrusion detection. In: Proceedings of the First USENIX Workshop on Intrusion Detection and Network Monitoring, pp. 51–62. Santa Clara, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Girardin, L., Brodbeck, D.: A visual approach or monitoring logs. In: Proceedings of the 12th System Administration Conference (LISA 98), pp. 299–308. Boston, MA (1998) (ISBN: 1-880446-40-5)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hu, W., Liao, Y., Vemuri, V.R.: Robust support vector machines for anomaly detection in computer security. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA'03). Los Angeles, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ilgun, K., Kemmerer, R.A., Porras, P.A.: State transition analysis: A rule-based intrusion detection approach. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 21(3), 181–199 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joshi, M., Agrawal, R.: PNrule: a new framework for learning classifier models in data mining (a case-study in network intrusion detection) (2001). In: Proceedings of the First SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. Chicago (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan, L., Luo, F.: Hierarchical clustering for complex data, in press. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools. World ScientificGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kohonen, T.: Self-Organizing Maps, Springer Series. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar, S., Spafford, E.H.: A software architecture to support misuse intrusion detection. In: Proceedings of the 18th National Information Security Conference, pp. 194–204. (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lane, T., Brodley, C.E.: Temporal sequence earning and data reduction for anomaly detection. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. Security 2(3), 295–331 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee, W., Stolfo, S.J.: A framework for constructing features and models for intrusion detection systems. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. Security 3(4), 227–261 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luo, F., Khan, L., Bastani, F.B., Yen, I.L., Zhou, J.: A dynamically growing self-organizing tree (DGSOT) for hierarchical clustering gene expression profiles. Bioinformatics 20(16), 2605–2617 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marchette, D.: A statistical method for profiling network traffic. In: Proceedings of the First USENIX Workshop on Intrusion Detection and Network Monitoring, pp. 119–128. Santa Clara, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCanne, S., Leres, C., Jacobson, V.: Libpcap, available via anonymous ftp at ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/ (1989)
  28. 28.
    Mukkamala, S., Janoski, G., Sung, A.: Intrusion detection: support vector machines and neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (ANNIE), pp. 1702–1707. St. Louis, MO (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lippmann, R., Graf, I., Wyschogrod, D., Webster, S.E., Weber, D.J., Gorton, S.: The 1998 DARPA/AFRL off-line intrusion detection evaluation. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ray, S., Turi, R.H.: Determination of number of clusters in k-means clustering and application in color image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advances in Pattern Recognition and Digital Techniques (ICAPRDT'99), pp. 137–143. Calcutta, India (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ryan, J., Lin, M., Mikkulainen, R.: Intrusion detection with neural networks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 10, pp. 943–949. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sequeira, K., Zaki, M.J.: ADMIT: anomaly-base data mining for intrusions. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 386–395 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stolfo, S.J., Lee, W., Chan, P.K., Fan, W., Eskin, E.: Data mining-based intrusion detectors: an overview of the Columbia IDS project. ACM SIGMOD Record 30(4), 5–14 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vapnik, V.N.: The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Voorhees, E.M.: Implementing agglomerative hierarchic clustering algorithms for use in document retrieval. Inform. Process. Manage. 22(6), 465–476 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Warrender, C., Forrest, S., Pearlmutter, B.: Detecting intrusions using system calls: Alternative data models. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 133–145. (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shih, L., Rennie, Y.D.M., Chang, Y., Karger, D.R.: Text bundling: statistics-based data reduction. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 696–703. Washington DC (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tufis, D., Popescu, C., Rosu, R.: Automatic classification of documents by random sampling. Proc. Romanian Acad. Ser. 1(2), 117–127 (2000)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Upadhyaya, S., Chinchani, R., Kwiat, K.: An analytical framework for reasoning about intrusions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, pp. 99–108. New Orleans, LA (2001)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang, K., Stolfo, S.J.: One class training for masquerade detection. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Conference, Data Mining Workshop on Data Mining for Computer Security. Florida (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yu, H., Yang, J., Han, J.: Classifying large data sets using SVM with hierarchical clusters. In: Proceedings of the SIGKDD 2003, pp. 306–315. Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang, T., Ramakrishnan, R., Livny, M.: BIRCH: an efficient data clustering method for very large databases. In: Proceedings of the SIGMOD Conference, pp. 103–114 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Latifur Khan
    • 1
  • Mamoun Awad
    • 1
  • Bhavani Thuraisingham
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at DallasDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations