K Nearest Neighbor and Flexible Neural Tree Based IDS in Mobile Ad- hoc Network

Indrajit Das, Piyali Roy, Debanjan Das, Sayan Das, P. Ghosal
{"title":"K Nearest Neighbor and Flexible Neural Tree Based IDS in Mobile Ad- hoc Network","authors":"Indrajit Das, Piyali Roy, Debanjan Das, Sayan Das, P. Ghosal","doi":"10.1109/VLSIDCS53788.2022.9811467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs) have brought about a lot of importance to recent researches because of its popularity and developing benefit. However, they seem to be defenseless against the various security threats that decrease their efficiency in comparison to other networks, by all accounts. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) creates a second line of safeguard against the various vulnerabilities to MANETs, as they scan the network for malicious activities performed by attackers. Because of the distributed characteristic of MANET, traditional cryptography mechanisms cannot shield MANETs entirely as far as novel attacks and vulnerabilities are concerned. Hence by applying machine learning strategies for IDS, these difficulties can be resolved. In this paper, numerous research works based on ML techniques over four types of attacks (DOS, Probe, U2R and R2L) have been reviewed and their performance is observed. From the above reviewed work, it can be inferred that KNN and FNT algorithm would perform better than the rest. After applying KNN and FNT in the proposed intrusion detection MANET model, KNN performed better than FNT. Accuracy of KNN for detection of DOS, Probe, U2R and R2L was 99.24%, 99.13, 98.89% and 98.42% respectively, whereas accuracy of FNT for detection of the same attacks was 98.35%, 98.07%, 97.84% and 98.01% respectively. So the detection accuracy of KNN is better than FNT. For KNN, the TP, FP, FN and precision value is 0.931, 0.015, 0.063 and 0.983 respectively , whereas for FNT, the TP, FP, FN and precision value is 0.815, 0.153, 0.274 and 0.826 respectively. From these above results, it is clear that KNN is better than FNT as the True Positive value and Precision is higher while the False Positive value and False Negative value is lower for KNN.","PeriodicalId":307414,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE VLSI Device Circuit and System (VLSI DCS)","volume":"os-56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE VLSI Device Circuit and System (VLSI DCS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/VLSIDCS53788.2022.9811467","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs) have brought about a lot of importance to recent researches because of its popularity and developing benefit. However, they seem to be defenseless against the various security threats that decrease their efficiency in comparison to other networks, by all accounts. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) creates a second line of safeguard against the various vulnerabilities to MANETs, as they scan the network for malicious activities performed by attackers. Because of the distributed characteristic of MANET, traditional cryptography mechanisms cannot shield MANETs entirely as far as novel attacks and vulnerabilities are concerned. Hence by applying machine learning strategies for IDS, these difficulties can be resolved. In this paper, numerous research works based on ML techniques over four types of attacks (DOS, Probe, U2R and R2L) have been reviewed and their performance is observed. From the above reviewed work, it can be inferred that KNN and FNT algorithm would perform better than the rest. After applying KNN and FNT in the proposed intrusion detection MANET model, KNN performed better than FNT. Accuracy of KNN for detection of DOS, Probe, U2R and R2L was 99.24%, 99.13, 98.89% and 98.42% respectively, whereas accuracy of FNT for detection of the same attacks was 98.35%, 98.07%, 97.84% and 98.01% respectively. So the detection accuracy of KNN is better than FNT. For KNN, the TP, FP, FN and precision value is 0.931, 0.015, 0.063 and 0.983 respectively , whereas for FNT, the TP, FP, FN and precision value is 0.815, 0.153, 0.274 and 0.826 respectively. From these above results, it is clear that KNN is better than FNT as the True Positive value and Precision is higher while the False Positive value and False Negative value is lower for KNN.
移动自组织网络中基于K近邻和柔性神经树的入侵检测
移动自组网(manet)由于其普及和发展的优势,引起了近年来研究的广泛关注。然而,与其他网络相比,它们似乎无法抵御各种降低效率的安全威胁。入侵检测系统(IDS)在扫描网络以查找攻击者执行的恶意活动时,为针对manet的各种漏洞创建了第二道保护措施。由于MANET的分布式特性,传统的加密机制无法完全屏蔽MANET的新攻击和漏洞。因此,通过将机器学习策略应用于IDS,可以解决这些困难。本文回顾了基于机器学习技术的四种攻击类型(DOS、Probe、U2R和R2L)的大量研究工作,并观察了它们的性能。从以上回顾的工作中,可以推断KNN和FNT算法会比其他算法表现得更好。将KNN和FNT应用于入侵检测MANET模型后,KNN的性能优于FNT。KNN检测DOS、Probe、U2R和R2L的准确率分别为99.24%、99.13%、98.89%和98.42%,而FNT检测相同攻击的准确率分别为98.35%、98.07%、97.84%和98.01%。因此,KNN的检测精度优于FNT。KNN的TP、FP、FN和精度值分别为0.931、0.015、0.063和0.983,而FNT的TP、FP、FN和精度值分别为0.815、0.153、0.274和0.826。从以上结果可以看出,KNN优于FNT,因为KNN的True Positive值和Precision更高,而False Positive值和False Negative值更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信