Open Access

Dynamic Modeling of Internet Traffic for Intrusion Detection

EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing20062007:090312

https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/90312

Received: 27 May 2005

Accepted: 18 May 2006

Published: 19 October 2006

Abstract

Computer network traffic is analyzed via mutual information techniques, implemented using linear and nonlinear canonical correlation analyses, with the specific objective of detecting UDP flooding attacks. NS simulation of HTTP, FTP, and CBR traffic shows that flooding attacks are accompanied by a change of mutual information, either at the link being flooded or at another upstream or downstream link. This observation appears to be topology independent, as the technique is demonstrated on the so-called parking-lot topology, random 50-node topology, and 100-node transit-stub topology. This technique is also employed to detect UDP flooding with low false alarm rate on a backbone link. These results indicate that a change in mutual information provides a useful detection criterion when no other signature of the attack is available.

[12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758]

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Nevis Networks Inc.
(2)
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California
(3)
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Delaware

References

  1. Kent S: On the trail of intrusions into information systems. IEEE Spectrum 2000,37(12):52-56. 10.1109/6.887597View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Moore D, Voelker G, Savage S: Inferring internet denial of service activity. Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2001, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Paxson V: Bro: a system for detecting network intruders in real-time. IEEE Computer Networks 1999,31(23-24):2435-2463. 10.1016/S1389-1286(99)00112-7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Roesch M: Snort-lightweight intrusion detection for networks. Proceedings of the USENIX LISA Conference on System Administration, November 1999, Seattle, Wash, USA 229-238.Google Scholar
  5. Staniford S, Hoagland JA, McAlerney JM: Practical automated detection of stealthy portscans. Journal of Computer Security 2002,10(1-2):105-136.Google Scholar
  6. Basseville M, Nikiforov I: Detection of Abrupt Changes: Theory and Application. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1993.Google Scholar
  7. Wang H, Zhang D, Shin KG: Change-point monitoring for the detection of DoS attacks. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 2004,1(4):193-208. 10.1109/TDSC.2004.34View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Siris VA, Papagalou F: Application of anomaly detection algorithms for detecting SYN flooding attacks. Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM '04), November-December 2004, Dallas, Tex, USA 4: 2050-2054.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Wong C, Bielski S, McCune JM, Wang C: A study of mass-mailing worms. Proceedings of the ACM CCS Workshop on Rapid Malcode (WORM '04), October 2004, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Whyte D, Kranakis E, van Oorschot PC: DNS-based detection of scanning worms in an enterprise network. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS '05), February 2005, San Diego, Calif, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Whyte D, Kranakis E, van Oorschot PC: ARP-based detection of scanning worms within an enterprise network. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '05), December 2005, Tucson, Ariz, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Mirkovic J, Prier G, Reiher PL: Attacking DDoS at the source. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP '02), November 2002, Paris, France 312-321.Google Scholar
  13. Shah K, Bohacek S, Jonckheere E: On the predictability of data network traffic. Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC '03), June 2003, Denver, Colo, USA 2: 1619-1624.Google Scholar
  14. Wallace CS, Dowe DL: Minimum message length and Kolmogorov complexity. The Computer Journal 1999,42(4):270-283. 10.1093/comjnl/42.4.270View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonckheere E, Helton J: Power spectrum reduction by optimal hankel norm approximation of the phase of the outer spectral factor. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1985,30(12):1192-1201. 10.1109/TAC.1985.1103864MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Zvonkin A, Levin L: The complexity of finite objects and the development of the concepts of information and randomness by means of the theory of algorithms. Russian Mathematical Surveys 1970,25(6):83-124. 10.1070/RM1970v025n06ABEH001269MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Sow DM, Eleftheriadis A: Complexity distortion theory. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2003,49(3):604-608. 10.1109/TIT.2002.808135MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Manin YI: A Course in Mathematical Logic. Springer, New York, NY, USA; 1977.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Akaike H: Markovian representation of stochastic processes by canonical variables. SIAM Journal on Control 1975,13(1):162-173. 10.1137/0313010MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Breiman L, Friedman JH: Estimating optimal transformations for multiple regression and correlation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1985, 80: 580-619. 10.2307/2288473MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Sipser M: Introduction to the Theory of Computation. PWS, Boston, Mass, USA; 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Nemytskii VV, Stepanov VV: Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations. Dover, New York, NY, USA; 1989.Google Scholar
  23. Brini F, Siboni S, Turchetti G, Vaienti S:Decay of correlations for the automorphism of the torus . Nonlinearity 1997,10(5):1257-1268. 10.1088/0951-7715/10/5/012MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Haydn N, Jonckheere EA: On mutual information. http://eudoxus.usc.edu/CHAOS/traffic.html
  25. Stallings W: High-Speed Networks TCP/IP and ATM Design Principles. 1st edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1998.Google Scholar
  26. Crovella ME, Bestavros A: Self-similarity in world wide web traffic: evidence and possible causes. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 1997,5(6):835-846. 10.1109/90.650143View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldmann A, Gilbert AC, Willinger W: Data networks as cascades: investigating the multifractal nature of Internet WAN traffic. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication (SIGCOMM '98), August-September 1998, Vancouver, BC, Canada 42-55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu NX, Baras JS: On scaling property of network traffic in small scales. submitted to Computer NetworksGoogle Scholar
  29. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam
  30. Denning DE: An intrusion detection model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1987,13(2):222-232.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Ghosh A, Wanken J, Charron F: Detection anomalous and unknown intrusions agains programs. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '98), Decemeber 1998, Scottsdale, Ariz, USA 259-267.Google Scholar
  32. Javitz HS, Valdes A: The SRI IDES statistical anomaly detector. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, May 1991, Oakland, Calif, USA 316-326.Google Scholar
  33. Ko C, Ruschitzka M, Levitt K: Execution monitoring of security-critical programs in distributed systems: a specification-based approach. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, May 1997, Oakland, Calif, USA 175-187.Google Scholar
  34. Lane T, Brodley CE: Temporal sequence learning and data reduction for anomaly detection. Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '98), November 1998, San Francisco, Calif, USA 150-158.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee W, Stolfo S: A framework for constructing features and models for intrusion detection systems. Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, August 1999, San Diego, Calif, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Forrest S, Hofmeyr SA, Somayaji A, Longstaff TA: A sense of self for unix processes. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 1996, Oakland, Calif, USA 120-128.Google Scholar
  37. Anderson R, Khattak A: The use of information retrieval techniques for intrusion detection. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID '98), September 1998, Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  38. Teng HS, Chen K, Lu SC-Y: Adaptive real-time anomaly detection using inductively generated sequential patterns. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, May 1990, Oakland, Calif, USA 278-284.Google Scholar
  39. Lunt T, Tamaru A, Gilham F, et al.: A real-time intrusion detection expert system (IDES). Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, Calif, USA; 1992.Google Scholar
  40. Blazek RB, Kim H, Rozovskii B, Tartakovsky A: A novel approach to detection of denial-of service attacks via adaptive sequential and batch sequential change-point detection methods. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Information Assurance Workshop, June 2001, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang H, Zhang D, Shin K: Detecting SYN flooding attacks. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM '02), June 2002, New York, NY, USA 3: 1530-1539.Google Scholar
  42. Alarcon-Aquino V, Barria JA: Anomaly detection in communication networks using wavelets. IEE Proceedings: Communications 2001,148(6):355-362. 10.1049/ip-com:20010659View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Thottan M, Ji C: Anomaly detection in IP networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 2003,51(8):2191-2204. 10.1109/TSP.2003.814797View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Barford P, Kline J, Plonka D, Ron A: A signal analysis of network traffic anomalies. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop (IMW '02), November 2002, Marseille, France 71-82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Cheng C-M, Kung HT, Tan K-S: Use of spectral analysis in defense against DoS attacks. Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM '02), November 2002, Taipei, Taiwan 3: 2143-2148.Google Scholar
  46. Hussain A, Heidemann J, Papadopoulos C: A framework for classifying denial of service attacks. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications (SIGCOMM '03), August 2003, Karlsruhe, Germany 99-110.Google Scholar
  47. Partridge C, Cousins D, Jackson A, Krishnan R, Saxena T, Strayer WT: Using signal processing to analyze wireless data traffic. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Wireless Security, September 2002, Atlanta, Ga, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang Z-L, Ribeiro V, Moon S, Diot C: Small-time scaling behaviors of Internet backbone traffic: an empirical study. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM '03), March-April 2003, San Francisco, Calif, USA 3: 1826-1836.Google Scholar
  49. Evans S, Bush SF, Hershey J: Information assurance through Kolmogorov complexity. Proceedings of the 2nd DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition II (DISCEX-II '01), June 2001, Anaheim, Calif, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Samoradnitsky G, Taqqu MS: Stable Non-Gaussian Random Processes, Stochastic Models with Infinite Variance. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, USA; 1994.Google Scholar
  51. Jonckheere E, Wu B-F: Mutual Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy approach to nonlinear estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, December 1992, Tucson, Ariz, USA 2226-2232.Google Scholar
  52. Kullback S: Information Theory and Statistics. Dover, New York, NY, USA; 1968.Google Scholar
  53. Wu BF: Identification and control of chaotic processes—the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy approach, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  54. Larimore WE: Identification and filtering of nonlinear systems using canonical variate analysis. In Nonlinear Modeling and Forecasting, SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity. Volume 12. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA; 1991:283-303.Google Scholar
  55. Leland W, Taqqu M, Willinger W, Wilson D: On the self-similar nature of Ethernet traffic (extended version). IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 1994,2(1):1-15. 10.1109/90.282603View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Pruthi P, Erramilli A: Heavy-tailed ON/OFF source behavior and self-similar traffic. IEEE International Conference on Communications, June 1995, Seattle, Wash, USA 1: 445-450.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. CERT : CERT advisory CA-96.01: UDP port denial-of-service attack. ftp://info.cert.org/pub/cert_advisories/ca-96.01.udp_service_denial
  58. ERT Coordination Center : Overview of attack trends. http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/attacktrends.pdf

Copyright

© Khushboo Shah et al. 2007

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.