Low-Quality Training Data Only? A Robust Framework for Detecting Encrypted Malicious Network Traffic

September 09, 2023 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› Network and Distributed System Security Symposium

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Yuqi Qing, Qilei Yin, Xinhao Deng, Yihao Chen, Zhuotao Liu, Kun Sun, Ke Xu, Jia Zhang, Qi Li arXiv ID 2309.04798 Category cs.CR: Cryptography & Security Citations 45 Venue Network and Distributed System Security Symposium Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is promising in accurately detecting malicious flows in encrypted network traffic; however, it is challenging to collect a training dataset that contains a sufficient amount of encrypted malicious data with correct labels. When ML models are trained with low-quality training data, they suffer degraded performance. In this paper, we aim at addressing a real-world low-quality training dataset problem, namely, detecting encrypted malicious traffic generated by continuously evolving malware. We develop RAPIER that fully utilizes different distributions of normal and malicious traffic data in the feature space, where normal data is tightly distributed in a certain area and the malicious data is scattered over the entire feature space to augment training data for model training. RAPIER includes two pre-processing modules to convert traffic into feature vectors and correct label noises. We evaluate our system on two public datasets and one combined dataset. With 1000 samples and 45% noises from each dataset, our system achieves the F1 scores of 0.770, 0.776, and 0.855, respectively, achieving average improvements of 352.6%, 284.3%, and 214.9% over the existing methods, respectively. Furthermore, We evaluate RAPIER with a real-world dataset obtained from a security enterprise. RAPIER effectively achieves encrypted malicious traffic detection with the best F1 score of 0.773 and improves the F1 score of existing methods by an average of 272.5%.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Cryptography & Security

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted