Advertisement

Evolving Intrusion Detection Systems

  • Ajith Abraham
  • Crina Grosan
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 13)

3.7 Conclusions

This chapter illustrated the importance of GP techniques for evolving intrusion detection systems. MEP outperforms LGP for three of the considered classes and LGP outperform MEP for two of the classes. MEP classification accuracy is grater than 95% for all considered classes and for three of them is greater than 99.75%. It is to be noted that for real time intrusion detection systems MEP and LGP would be the ideal candidates because of its simplified implementation.

Keywords

Support Vector Machine Intrusion Detection Radial Basis Function Neural Network Intrusion Detection System Terminal Symbol 
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.
    Abraham, A., Evolutionary Computation in Intelligent Web Management, Evolutionary Computing in Data Mining, Ghosh A. and Jain L.C. (Eds.), Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer Verlag Germany, Chapter 8, pp. 189–210, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. P. Anderson. Computer Security Threat Monitoring and Surveillance. Technical report, James P Anderson Co., Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, April 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbara D., Couto J., Jajodia S. and Wu N., ADAM: A Testbed for Exploring the Use of Data Mining in Intrusion Detection. SIGMOD Record, 30(4), pp. 15–24, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brameier M. and Banzhaf W, Explicit control of diversity and effective variation distance in Linear Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the fourth European Conference on Genetic Programming, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brieman L., Friedman J., Olshen R., and Stone C., Classification of Regression Trees. Wadsworth Inc., 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen W., Learning Trees and Rules with Set-Valued Features, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denning D., An Intrusion-Detection Model, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-13, No. 2, pp. 222–232, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. D. Garvey and T. F. Lunt. Model based intrusion detection, In Proceedings of the 14th National Computer Security Conference, pages 372–385, October 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosan C., Abraham A. and Han S.Y., MEPIDS: Multi-Expression Programming for Intrusion Detection System, International Work-conference on the Interplay between Natural and Artificial Computation, (IWINAC’05), Spain, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Germany, pp. 163–172, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Heady, G. Luger, A. Maccabe, and M. Servilla, The Architecture of a Network level Intrusion Detection System. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of New Mexico, August 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Ilgun. USTAT: A Real-Time Intrusion Detection System for UNIX, Master Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, November 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Joachims. Making Large-Scale SVM Learning Practical. LS8-Report, University of Dortmund, LS VIII-Report, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    KDD Cup 1999 Intrusion detection data set: http://kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/kddcup.data_10_percent.gzGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Kumar and E. H. Spafford. An Application of Pattern Matching in Intrusion Detection. Technical Report CSD-TR-94-013, Purdue University, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Kumar. Classification and Detection of Computer Intrusions, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, August 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee W. and Stolfo S. and Mok K., A Data Mining Framework for Building Intrusion Detection Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T.F. Lunt, A. Tamaru, F. Gilham et al, A Real Time Intrusion Detection Expert System (IDES), Final Technical Report, Project 6784, SRI International 1990Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Lunt. Detecting intruders in computer systems. In Proceedings of the 1993 Conference on Auditing and Computer Technology, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MIT Lincoln Laboratory. http://www.ll.mit.edu/IST/ideval/Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oltean M. and Grosan C., A Comparison of Several Linear GP Techniques, Complex Systems, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 285–313, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oltean M. and Grosan C., Evolving Evolutionary Algorithms using Multi Expression Programming. Proceedings of The 7 th European Conference on Artificial Life, Dortmund, Germany, pp. 651–658, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peddabachigari S., Abraham A., Thomas J., Intrusion Detection Systems Using Decision Trees and Support Vector Machines, International Journal of Applied Science and Computations, Vol.11, No.3, pp.118–134, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. A. Porras. STAT: A State Transition Analysis Tool for Intrusion Detection. Master’s Thesis, Computer Science Dept., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Provost, F. and T. Fawcett. Robust Classification for Imprecise Environments, Machine Learning 42, 203–231, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. R. Quinlan. Induction of Decision Trees. Machine Learning, 1:81–106, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. R. Quinlan. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Ryan C. J.J. Collins and M. O’Neill. Gramatical Evolution: Evolving programs for an arbitrary language, In Proceedings of the first European Workshop on Genetic Programming, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Summers R.C., Secure Computing: Threats and Safeguards. McGraw Hill, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Sundaram. An Introduction to Intrusion Detection. ACM Cross Roads, Vol. 2, No. 4, April 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. S. Teng, K. Chen and S. C. Lu. Security Audit Trail Analysis Using Inductively Generated Predictive Rules. In Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications, pages 24–29, IEEE, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, March 1990.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vapnik V.N., The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajith Abraham
    • 1
  • Crina Grosan
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringChung-Ang UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceBabeş Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations