Data Mining for Network Intrusion Detection : A comparison of data mining algorithms and an analysis of relevant features for detecting cyber-attacks

Data mining can be defined as the extraction of implicit, previously un-known, and potentially useful information from data. Numerous re-searchers have been developing security technology and exploring new methods to detect cyber-attacks with the DARPA 1998 dataset for Intrusion Detection and the modified versions of this dataset KDDCup99 and NSL-KDD, but until now no one have examined the performance of the Top 10 data mining algorithms selected by experts in data mining. The compared classification learning algorithms in this thesis are: C4.5, CART, k-NN and Naïve Bayes. The performance of these algorithms are compared with accuracy, error rate and average cost on modified versions of NSL-KDD train and test dataset where the instances are classified into normal and four cyber-attack categories: DoS, Probing, R2L and U2R. Additionally the most important features to detect cyber-attacks in all categories and in each category are evaluated with Weka’s Attribute Evaluator and ranked according to Information Gain. The results show that the classification algorithm with best performance on the dataset is the k-NN algorithm. The most important features to detect cyber-attacks are basic features such as the number of seconds of a network connection, the protocol used for the connection, the network service used, normal or error status of the connection and the number of data bytes sent. The most important features to detect DoS, Probing and R2L attacks are basic features and the least important features are content features. Unlike U2R attacks, where the content features are the most important features to detect attacks.

Quantitative comparison of SensibleThings and Microsoft Azure IoT Hub

With the development of the Internet-of-Things, more and more IoT platforms come up with different structures and characteristics. Making balance of their advantages and disadvantages, we should choose the suitable platform in differ- ent scenarios. For this project, I make comparison of a cloud-based centralized platform, Microsoft Azure IoT hub and a fully distributed platform, Sensi- bleThings. Quantitative comparison is made for performance by 2 scenarios, messages sending speed adds up, devices lie in different location. General com- parison is made for security, utilization and the storage. Finally I draw the con- clusion that SensibleThings performs more stable when a lot of messages push- es to the platform. Microsoft Azure has better geographic expansion. For gener- al comparison, Microsoft Azure IoT hub has better security. The requirement of local device for Microsoft Azure IoT hub is lower than SensibleThings. The SensibleThings are open source and free while Microsoft Azure follow the con- cept “pay as you go” with many throttling limitations for different editions. Microsoft is more user-friendly.

Theoretical and Quantitative Comparison of SensibleThings and GSN

This project is aimed at making comparison between current existing Internet- of-Things (IoT) platforms, SensibleThings (ST) and Global Sensors Networks (GSN). Project can be served as a further work of platforms’ investigation. Comparing and learning from each other aim to contribute to the improvement of future platforms development. Detailed comparison is mainly with the respect of platform feature, communication and data present-frequency performance under stress, and platform node scalability performance on one limited device. Study is conducted through developing applications on each platform, and making measuring performance under the same condition in household network environment. So far, all these respects have had results and been concluded. Qualitatively comparing, GSN performs better in the facets of node’s swift development and deployment, data management, node subscription and connection retry mechanism. Whereas, ST is superior in respects of network package encryption, platform reliability, session initializing latency, and degree of developing freedom. In quantitative comparison, nodes on GSN has better data push pressure resistence while ST nodes works with lower session latency. In terms of data present-frequency, ST node can reach higher updating frequency than GSN node. In the aspect of node sclability on one limited device, ST nodes take the advantage in averagely lower latency than GSN node when nodes number is less than 15 on limited device. But due to sharing mechanism of GSN, on one limited device, it's nodes shows more scalable if platform nodes have similar job.