CCS2011: Enemy of the Good: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=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= | =Title= | ||
Revision as of 14:45, 2 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?