CCS2011: Enemy of the Good: Difference between revisions

From Soma-notes
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
** approximation works best if Gaussian but has limits (show mathematically)
** approximation works best if Gaussian but has limits (show mathematically)
** non-Gaussian distributions place much harsher restrictions on error rates, they don't go down proportionally to sample size? (more math)
** non-Gaussian distributions place much harsher restrictions on error rates, they don't go down proportionally to sample size? (more math)
* Survey of results in IDS literature
* [[Survey of results in IDS literature]]





Revision as of 12:19, 7 March 2011

ToDo

  • Gather data from different IDS observables to show they aren't Gaussian
    • system calls (Luc)
    • network traffic
    • log files
  • Machine learning
    • standard machine learning methods approximate distributions
    • approximation works best if Gaussian but has limits (show mathematically)
    • non-Gaussian distributions place much harsher restrictions on error rates, they don't go down proportionally to sample size? (more math)
  • Survey of results in IDS literature


Title

How to Evaluate Intrusion Detection Systems

Abstract

Introduction

  • Evaluating non-adaptive IDSs (signature, specification) is like evaluating a programming language
    • quality of individual solutions does not indicate quality of framework
    • quality over all solutions might say something, but that is very hard to measure
  • Adaptive IDSs has been seen as a machine learning problem, but it really isn't.
  • Multiple papers criticizing specific ML approaches to IDS [CITES]
  • Problem is general


  • Why?
    • Classifier technology and the illusion of progress[1]

Sections:

  • Problem

What Goes Wrong

  • Poor results
    • datasets do not represent real-world usage or scenarios accurately
    • insufficient or misleading tests of false positive rates
    • Even when rates are accurate, they are misinterpreted: high FP rates are not considered to be high (wrong time scale, lack of attention to scalability)
    • misleading integration of attacks into legitimate behavior
  • Administrative overhead
    • rules that can only be created by experts, but system requires end users to create custom rules
    • experts required to interpret output
    • insufficient context for even experts to interpret output
    • assumption of existence of security personnel that won't even exist in many important contexts
  • Computational overhead
    • can system keep up with normal workloads?
    • can system keep up with attacker-generated workloads?
  • Anomalies versus attacks
    • why is one a good proxy for the other?
    • why is chosen feature(s) particularly good at detecting attacks?
  • Out of the box algorithms applied w/o understanding security problem
  • Attacker evasion: how can attacker manipulate system? Can system lead to environment that is easier to attack?

Discussion

Conclusion

References