Advertisement

On the Use of Different Statistical Tests for Alert Correlation – Short Paper

  • Federico Maggi
  • Stefano Zanero
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4637)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze the use of different types of statistical tests for the correlation of anomaly detection alerts. We show that the Granger Causality Test, one of the few proposals that can be extended to the anomaly detection domain, strongly depends on good choices of a parameter which proves to be both sensitive and difficult to estimate. We propose a different approach based on a set of simpler statistical tests, and we prove that our criteria work well on a simplified correlation task, without requiring complex configuration parameters.

Keywords

Intrusion Detection Granger Causality Anomaly Detection Intrusion Detection System Granger Causality Test 
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.
    Akaike, H.: A new look at the statistical model identification. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on 19(6), 716–723 (1974)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dain, O., Cunningham, R.: Fusing heterogeneous alert streams into scenarios. In: Proc. of the ACM Workshop on Data Mining for Security Applications, November 2001, pp. 1–13. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eckmann, S., Vigna, G., Kemmerer, R.: STATL: An attack language for state-based intrusion detection. In: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Intrusion Detection, Atene, November 2000, ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haines, J., Ryder, D.K., Tinnel, L., Taylor, S.: Validation of sensor alert correlators. IEEE Security and Privacy 01(1), 46–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Julisch, K., Dacier, M.: Mining intrusion detection alarms for actionable knowledge. In: Proc. of the 8th ACM SIGKDD Int’l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, New York, NY, USA, pp. 366–375. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lippmann, R., Haines, J.W., Fried, D.J., Korba, J., Das, K.: The 1999 darpa off-line intrusion detection evaluation. Comput. Networks 34(4), 579–595 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lippmann, R., Haines, J.W., Fried, D.J., Korba, J., Das, K.: Analysis and results of the 1999 DARPA off-line intrusion detection evaluation. In: Debar, H., Mé, L., Wu, S.F. (eds.) RAID 2000. LNCS, vol. 1907, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maggi, F., Matteucci, M., Zanero, S.: Detecting intrusions through system call sequence and argument analysis (submitted for publication, 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maggi, F., Matteucci, M., Zanero, S.: Reducing false positives in anomaly detectors through fuzzy alert aggregation (submitted for publication, 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahoney, M.V., Chan, P.K.: An analysis of the 1999 DARPA / Lincoln laboratory evaluation data for network anomaly detection. In: Vigna, G., Krügel, C., Jonsson, E. (eds.) RAID 2003. LNCS, vol. 2820, pp. 220–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McHugh, J.: Testing intrusion detection systems: a critique of the 1998 and 1999 DARPA intrusion detection system evaluations as performed by lincoln laboratory. ACM Trans. on Information and System Security 3(4), 262–294 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ning, P., Cui, Y., Reeves, D.S., Xu, D.: Techniques and tools for analyzing intrusion alerts. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 7(2), 274–318 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pestman, W.R.: Mathematical Statistics: An Introduction. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qin, X., Lee, W.: Statistical causality analysis of INFOSEC alert data. In: Vigna, G., Krügel, C., Jonsson, E. (eds.) RAID 2003. LNCS, vol. 2820, pp. 73–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Templeton, S.J., Levitt, K.: A requires/provides model for computer attacks. In: NSPW 2000: Proceedings of the 2000 workshop on New security paradigms, New York, NY, USA, pp. 31–38. ACM Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thurman, W.N., Fisher, M.E.: Chickens, eggs, and causality, or which came first? American Journal of Agricultural Economics (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valeur, F., Vigna, G., Kruegel, C., Kemmerer, R.A.: A comprehensive approach to intrusion detection alert correlation. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 1(3), 146–169 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venables, W., Ripley, B.: Modern Applied Statistics with S. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viinikka, J., Debar, H., Mé, L., Séguier, R.: Time series modeling for IDS alert management. In: Proc. of the 2006 ACM Symp. on Information, computer and communications security, pp. 102–113. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zanero, S.: Analyzing TCP traffic patterns using self organizing maps. In: Roli, F., Vitulano, S. (eds.) ICIAP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3617, pp. 83–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zanero, S.: Unsupervised Learning Algorithms for Intrusion Detection. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano T.U., Milano, Italy (May 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Maggi
    • 1
  • Stefano Zanero
    • 1
  1. 1.Politecnico di Milano, Dip. Elettronica e Informazione, via Ponzio 34/5, 20133 MilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations