IoT Network Attack Detection using Supervised Machine Learning

Sundar Krishnan, Ashar Neyaz & Qingzhong Liu
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems (IJAE), Volume (10) : Issue (2) : 2021 18
ISSN: 2180-124X, https://www.cscjournals.org/journals/IJAE/description.php
IoT Network Attack Detection using Supervised
Machine Learning
Sundar Krishnan skrishnan@shsu.edu
Department of Computer Science
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, TX, USA
Ashar Neyaz ashar.neyaz@shsu.edu
Huntsville, TX, USA
Qingzhong Liu liu@shsu.edu
Huntsville, TX, USA
Abstract
The use of supervised learning algorithms to detect malicious traffic can be valuable in designing
intrusion detection systems and ascertaining security risks. The Internet of things (IoT) refers to
the billions of physical, electronic devices around the world that are often connected over the
Internet. The growth of IoT systems comes at the risk of network attacks such as denial of service
(DoS) and spoofing. In this research, we perform various supervised feature selection methods
and employ three classifiers on IoT network data. The classifiers predict with high accuracy if the
network traffic against the IoT device was malicious or benign. We compare the feature selection
methods to arrive at the best that can be used for network intrusion prediction.
Keywords: Supervised Learning, Network Attack Detection, IoT, Network Forensics, Network
Security.
1. INTRODUCTION
Network traffic has seen unprecedented growth in the last decades. With growing volumes of
Internet-connected devices, cheaper cloud storage, growing smartphone technology, decreasing
device and network hardware costs, and the advent of 5G technology, it is predicted that by 2023,
there will be 3X more networked devices on earth than humans. A Cisco Annual Internet Report
Forecasts 5G to support more than 10% of Global Mobile Connections by 2023 [1], [2]. This
growth in network traffic and Internet-connected devices has resulted in an increase of malicious
attacks over the network that can sometimes be difficult to detect. A network attack is a type of
cyber-attack in which the attacker attempts to gain unauthorized access into a computer network
or an Internet-connected device for malicious purposes or reconnaissance. Cyber-attacks rank as
the fastest growing crime in the U.S., causing catastrophic business disruption. Globally,
cybercrime damages are expected to reach US $10.5 trillion annually by 2025. NIST defines a
cyber-attack (breach) as, “An attack, via cyberspace, targeting an enterprise’s use of cyberspace
for the purpose of disrupting, disabling, destroying, or maliciously controlling a computing
environment/infrastructure; or destroying the integrity of the data or stealing controlled
information” [3]. Over the years, Cybercrime has moved on from targeting and harming people,
computers, networks, and smartphones - to cars, power-grids, smart devices, and anything that
can connect back to the Internet.

The Internet of Things (IoT) has come a long way since the 80s when early IoT designers
(students) at Carnegie Melon University installed micro-switches inside of a Coca-Cola vending
machine to remotely check on the temperature and availability of their favorite beverages [4]. IoT
devices and technology have gone mainstream these days, with IoT devices remotely controlling
our home speakers, smart elevators, cars, household appliances, power plants, security
cameras, baby cams, smart buildings, medical devices, freight, etc. These devices connect back
to the Internet via traditional copper wires, fiber, and telecom technology for remote control
functionality, thereby making them game for malicious actors using the Internet. IoT devices are
often shipped to users with minimal logon security, operating system vulnerabilities, and overall
poor security design. This can be mostly attributed to keeping costs down, ease of use for the
user, and inadequate security foresight by the manufacturers. Consequently, the attack surface of
IoT devices has greatly grown, triggering security and privacy concerns. The infamous Mirai
botnet [5] self-replicated by seeking out hundreds of thousands of home routers with weak or
non-existent passwords. The roll-out of the 5G mobile networks may further embolden IoT cyber
attackers due to the advantage of high bandwidth, ultra-low latency, and fundamentally new
networking capabilities of 5G technology [6].
IoT tangibly solves many business problems across industries such as healthcare, smart cities,
building management, utilities, transportation, and manufacturing. About 30% of devices on
enterprise networks today are network-connected IoT devices [7], making them potential targets
over a network. Unlike traditional IT assets like servers and endpoints, these network-connected
devices may not be well maintained and documented by IT teams. Such assets can easily be
missed from an organization’s proactive security monitoring apparatus. IoT devices are also
found in home networks and may not have adequate security controls or infrastructure to protect
them. With more and more diverse types of IoT devices continuing to connect to the network,
there can be a dramatic broadening of the attack surface. All it takes for a successful intrusion is
the diminished integrity of a weak asset on the network.
Predictive capabilities are incredibly beneficial in any industrial setting, especially in thwarting
cyber-attacks. Machine learning helps solve tasks (such as regression, clustering, classification,
dimensionality reduction, etc.) using an approach/method based on available data. A popular
area of machine learning application in cybersecurity is helping businesses detect malicious
activity faster and stop attacks before they get started. Cybersecurity should be implemented in
layers against any asset. It must be noted that machine learning alone will never be a silver bullet
for cybersecurity, but when coupled with other controls, it can improve intrusion detection. While
extensive research has been undertaken to predict/detect network attacks on common
Information Technology assets, little research has been conducted towards IoT device attacks. In
this research, we apply machine learning approaches towards IoT attack detection using the
IoTID20 dataset [8] that was built on the network traffic of botnet attacks [9] against IoT devices.
Three feature selection models are chosen, and the prediction of an attack based on supervised
learning is presented by applying three classifiers against each feature selection model.
2. BACKGROUND
An intrusion detection system (IDS) is a hardware device or software application that monitors a
network or host for malicious activity or policy violations [10]. While IDS alerts on intrusions,
Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) can respond to detected intrusion upon discovery. Intrusion
detection using both supervised learning and unsupervised learning has been primarily
researched. Using unsupervised machine learning to understand better network attacks has been
widely researched. Kumar et al. [11] evaluated MeanShift algorithm to detect network incursion
against the KDD99 network traffic dataset. The authors concluded that the MeanShift could
detect an attack in the network dataset. However, the algorithm could not detect Remote to Local
(R2L) and User to Root (U2R) attacks. Serra et al. Mukherjee et al. [12] proposed ClusterGAN as
a new medium for adaptive clustering using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). Choi et al.
developed a network intrusion detection system (NIDS) using an unsupervised learning algorithm
against unlabeled data. The high accuracy of the experiment results provided a recommendation

for developing network intrusion detection systems. False attack detection can be challenging to
detect. Sakhini et al. [14] evaluated SVM (Support Vector Machine), KNN (K-Nearest-Neighbors),
and ANN (Artificial Neural Network) to detect FDI (False Data Injection) attacks. Their experiment
results showed that KNN and SVM were more accurate than ANN. Supervised learning is the
machine learning task of learning a function that maps an input to an output based on examples
(labeled data) of such input-output pairs. Balkanli et al. [17] detected network intrusion with 99%
accuracy against 20% of backscatter darknet traffic by employing two opensource network
intrusion detection systems (NIDS) and two supervised machine learning techniques on
backscatter darknet traffic. Morfino et al. [18] evaluated the performance of various supervised
machine learning algorithms in recognizing cyberattacks, specifically, the SYN-DOS attacks on
IoT systems by differentiating them in terms of application performances and also in
training/application times. Their Apache Spark algorithm yielded an accuracy of greater than
99%, whereas Random Forest achieved an accuracy of 1%. A simple type of attack against IoT
devices is Denial-of-Service (DoS). The IoT device receives bursts of surplus network traffic
rendering it unusable or overtaxing IoT hardware and underlying infrastructure. Hodo et al. [19]
used Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to detect Denial-of-Service (DoS) of Distributed Denial-of-
Service (DDoS) attacks with a 99.4% accuracy in attack detection. Loannou et al. [20] put forward
the use of Support Vector Machine (SVM) learning model for detecting deviation within the
Internet of Things. The proposed SVM model achieved up to 100% accuracy when evaluated
against the unknown data taken from the corresponding network topology with proper training.
The model also achieved an 81% accuracy when used under an unknown topology. Often IoT
devices are wireless and configured to routers with poor security settings [21]. Grimaldi et al. [22]
leveraged supervised machine learning techniques in real-time to identify and detect wireless
traffic interference, thereby allowing for isolation and extraction of standard-specific traffic. Anthi
et al. [23] presented a three-layer intrusion detection system (IDS) that used a supervised
machine learning approach to detect a variety of popular network-based attacks on IoT networks.
The proposed system’s three core functions’ performance resulted in an F-measure of 96.2%,
90.0%, and 98.0%, respectively. This demonstrated that the proposed system could automatically
distinguish IoT devices on the network and detect attack types against devices on the network.
Artificial neural networks and deep learning approaches can also be used to detect network
intrusions. Caron et al. [16] proposed a scalable clustering method called DeepCluster for
unsupervised learning of convolutional neural networks or convnets against the ImageNet and
YFCC100M datasets. Their results obtained were better than other state-of-the-art approaches by
a significant margin. There are limitations to using machine learning to identify network attacks.
Xiao et al. [15] examined attack models and IoT security solutions based on machine learning
techniques. They concluded that supervised and unsupervised learning sometimes fails to detect
the attacks due to oversampling, insufficient training data, and bad feature extraction. In this
research, we leverage supervised learning to predict normal and malicious/abnormal network
traffic using the IoTID20 dataset [8]. Ullah et al. [8] proposed this dataset, namely IoTID20 that
was generated from Botnet traffic against IoT devices [9]. Ullah et al. [8] also utilized this dataset
to propose a detection classification methodology. In this article, we choose a different approach
compared to Ullah et al. [8] when selecting features and classifiers. We then evaluate these
various feature selection approaches against classifier accuracy.
3. FEATURE SELECTION IN MACHINE LEARNING
Machine learning is a branch of computational algorithms designed to emulate human intelligence
by learning from the surrounding environment [24]. Machine learning (ML) and Artificial
Intelligence (AI) have become dominant problem-solving techniques in many areas of research
and industry in the last decade. ML and AI are not the same. While Artificial intelligence is about
problem-solving, reasoning, and learning in general; Machine learning is specifically about
learning—learning from examples, from definitions, from being told, and from behavior [25]. While
working with ML, we typically use datasets (like a database table or an Excel spreadsheet) that
contain data for the experiment arranged in columns (features). Each feature, or column,
represents a measurable piece of data that can be used for analysis. The below discussion is
about a few feature engineering (selection) techniques and supervised learning algorithms

employed in our research experiments. Often in a dataset, the given set of features in their raw
form does not provide enough, or the most optimal, information to train a Machine Learning
model. It may be beneficial to remove unnecessary or conflicting features in some instances,
which is known as feature selection or feature engineering. Feature selection is a critical and
effective approach to ignoring or retaining certain features on a dataset that do not contribute
statistically significantly towards the predicted outcome. Thus, only the most significant subset of
features are retained in a model while removing these irrelevant, redundant, and noisy features.
3.1 Filter Methods
Filter methods select features from a dataset independently by relying on features’
characteristics, which is often the first step before applying machine learning algorithms. Basic
and intuitive filter methods help remove Constant features, Quasi- Constant features, and
Duplicated features. A dataset can also include correlated features wherein highly correlated
features provide redundant information regarding the target. In such cases, removing one of the
two highly correlated features can reduce the dimensionality and noise.
3.2 Sequential Forward Processing
Sequential Forward Processing (or forward feature selection) is a wrapper method that iterates
through the set of features while evaluating them using a machine learning algorithm. A preset
criterion (k features) is selected, which is the maximum number of features to be reached when
starting from zero. The initial starting step is to evaluate all features individually and then select
the one that results in the best performance [26]. In the second iteration, we test all possible
combinations of the selected feature with the remaining features and retain the pair that produces
the best algorithmic performance. Subsequent iterations continue by adding one feature at a time
in each iteration until the preset criteria is reached.
3.3 Sequential Backward Processing
Sequential Backward Processing (or backward feature selection) is a wrapper method that
iterates through the set of features while evaluating them using a machine learning algorithm. A
preset criterion (k features) is selected, which is the maximum number of features to be reached
when starting from zero. The initial starting step is to consider all the features in the dataset,
followed by a performance evaluation of the algorithm [26]. Similar iterations follow by removing
one feature (least significant) at a time producing the best performing algorithm using an
evaluation metric. Iterations continue removing feature after feature until the preset criteria is
reached.
3.4 Recursive Feature Elimination
Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) is a feature selection method that fits a model (e.g., linear
regression or SVM) and removes the weakest feature (or features) until the specified number of
features are reached [27]. RFE requires a specified number of features to keep while eliminating
dependencies and collinearity that may exist in the model.
4. SUPERVISED LEARNING
Supervised learning in machine learning and artificial intelligence refers to systems and
algorithms that determine a predictive model using labeled data points with known outcomes. The
model is learned by training through learning algorithms such as linear regression, random
forests, or neural networks. As input data is fed into the model, it adjusts its weights through a
reinforcement learning process, ensuring that the model has been fitted appropriately [28].
Supervised learning is often used to create machine learning models for Regression and
Classification types of problems. A statistical approach known as regression analysis can be
implemented to establish a possible relationship between different variables. Regression analysis
consists of a set of machine learning methods that allow predicting a continuous outcome
variable (y) based on the value of one or multiple predictor variables (x).

4.1 Random Forest
Random Forest (RF) is based on decision trees and is one of the many machine learning
algorithms used for supervised learning. There are two main ways for combining the outputs of
multiple decision trees into a random forest, 1. Bagging (Bootstrap aggregation) used in Random
Forests and 2. Boosting (used in Gradient Boosting Machines). Figure: 1 depicts a random forest.
Random Forest implementations are available in many machine learning libraries for R and
Python, like Caret (R) [30], Scikit-learn (Python sklearn.ensemble.RandomForestRegressor) [31],
and H2O (R and Python) [32].
FIGURE 1: A diagram of a random decision forest [29].
4.2 Support Vector Classifier (SVC)
The main task of the algorithm is to find the most correct line, or hyperplane, which divides data
into two classes. An SVC is an algorithm that receives input data and returns such a dividing line.
In python sklearn library [31], the implementation of SVC is based on libsvm. The objective of a
Linear SVC (Support Vector Classifier) is to fit the data and return a “best fit” hyperplane that
divides or categorizes the data.
4.3 eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)
XGBoost implements machine learning algorithms under the gradient boosting framework and is
an optimized end-to-end tree boosting library designed to be highly efficient, flexible, and portable
[33]. The XGBoost library implements the gradient boosting decision tree algorithm. Figure: 2
depicts the evolution of XGBoost. Generally, XGBoost is fast when compared to other
implementations of gradient boosting [35].
FIGURE 2: Evolution of XGBoost Algorithm from Decision Trees [34].

5. EXPERIMENTS
The IoT dataset in .csv format obtained by Ullah et al. [8] was used for this experiment. The
dataset contains network traffic processed from packet captures [9] on two smart home devices
wherein attacks on these IoT devices were captured over the wireless network. We decided to
focus on the month of May for its ease of use and as it contained all the necessary network attack
categories. Python scripts were used for parsing, data preparation, and logistic regression.
Results were then documented for analysis. Figure: 3 outlines the workflow of our research.
5.1 Dataset Preparation
Before logistic regression analysis could be performed, few data preparation steps were
undertaken below to pre-process and transform the raw data into the necessary data structure to
carry out the analysis. The timestamp feature was first formatted for a timestamp format. The
dataset was filtered for May/2019 network traffic data using the Timestamp feature. We decided
to ignore the features FlowID, Category, and Sub-Category. The feature Label was encoded for
Normal =1 and Anomaly=2. The Src IP and Dest IP features were each encoded as 1, 2, 3, and 4
depending on the network class of the IP address values (class A=1, B=2, C=3 and D=4). The
Timestamp feature was transformed into Date and Time features (24-hr format). Data rows with
invalid Dst IP (0.0.0.x) were ignored. Table 1 shows the features at the end of this step. We used
pre-processing techniques such as dropping features that are Constants, Quasi-Constants, and
Duplicates. A Pearson’s correlation of 0.8 was then applied to further select features. Correlated
features degrade the detection capability of a machine learning algorithm, and thus, highly
correlated features were ignored from the IoTID20 dataset. Table 2 shows a list of features that
were dropped from the IoTID20 dataset at each pre-processing stage and the final set of features
to retain at the end of pre-processing.
FIGURE 3: Experiment workflow.
5.2 Feature Selection and Logistic Regression
After pre-processing, a separate dataset with 33 features as in Table 3 was created for the
experiment. This dataset was then used for the below experiments.
a) Applied Sequential Backward Processing for feature selection and obtained eight features
for logistic regression. Table 2 shows the features obtained after applying Sequential
Backward Processing. The dataset was split into train/test (80/20) and perform logistic
regression using Random Forest Classifier, SVC, and XGBoost. Results were documented
for analysis.
b) Applied Sequential Forward Processing for feature selection and obtained eight features for
logistic regression. Table 2 shows the features obtained after applying Sequential Forward
Processing. The dataset was split into train/test (80/20) and perform logistic regression
using Random Forest Classifier, SVC, and XGBoost. Results were documented for
analysis.

c) Applied RFE processing for feature selection and obtained eight logistic regression
features. Table 2 shows the features obtained after applying RFE. The dataset was split
into train/test (80/20) and perform logistic regression using Random Forest Classifier, SVC,
and XGBoost. Results were documented for analysis.
Dataset Features
Original
dataset
Src IP,Src IP Cl (network class of Src IP), Src Port, Dst IP, Dst IP CL (network
class of Dst IP), Dst Port, Protocol, Timestamp DT (split date value of
Timestamp), Timestamp 24HR TIME (split time value of Timestamp), Flow
Duration, Tot Fwd Pkts, Tot Bwd Pkts, TotLen Fwd Pkts, TotLen Bwd Pkts, Fwd
Pkt Len Max, Fwd Pkt Len Min, Fwd Pkt Len Mean, Fwd Pkt Len Std, Bwd Pkt
Len Max, Bwd Pkt Len Min, Bwd Pkt Len Mean, Bwd Pkt Len Std, Flow Byts s,
Flow Pks s, Flow IAT Mean, Flow IAT Std, Flow IAT Max, Flow IAT Min, Fwd IAT
Tot, Fwd IAT Mean, Bwd IAT Mean, Fwd IAT Max, Fwd IAT Min, Bwd IAT Tot,
Bwd IAT Mean.1, Bwd IAT Std, Bwd IAT Max, Bwd IAT Min, Fwd PSH Flags, Bwd
PSH Flags, Fwd URG Flags, Bwd URG Flags, Fwd Header Len, Bwd Header
Len, Fwd Pkts s, Bwd Pks s, Pkt Len Min, Pkt Len Max, Pkt Len Mean, Pkt Len
Std, Pkt Len Var, FIN Flag Cnt, SYN Flag Cnt, RST Flag Cnt, PSH Flag Cnt, ACK
Flag Cnt, URG Flag Cnt, CWE Flag Count, ECE Flag Cnt, Down Up Ratio, Pkt
Size Avg, Fwd Seg Size Avg, Bwd Seg Size Avg, Fwd Byts/b Avg, Fwd Pkts b
Avg, Fwd Blk Rate Avg, Bwd Byts b Avg, Bwd Pkts b Avg, Bwd Blk Rate Avg,
Subflow Fwd Pkts, Subflow Fwd Byts, Subflow Bwd Pkts, Subflow Bwd Byts, Init
Fwd Win Byts, Init Bwd Win Byts, Fwd Act Data Pkts, Fwd Seg Size Min, Active
Mean, Active Std, Active Max, Active Min, Idle Mean, Idle Std, Idle Max, Idle Min,
Label (converted to binary), Cat, Sub Cat
TABLE 1: Original Dataset after feature cleansing.
Pre-processing / Filter
techniques applied
Features dropped as a result
Constant features
Fwd PSH Flags, Fwd URG Flags, Fwd Byts/b Avg, Fwd Pkts b Avg,
Fwd Blk Rate Avg, Bwd Byts b Avg, Bwd Pkts b Avg, Bwd Blk Rate
Avg, Init Fwd Win Byts, Fwd Seg Size Min, Timestamp month
Quasi-Constant features Bwd URG Flags, FIN Flag Cnt, RST Flag Cnt, URG Flag Cnt, CWE
Flag Count, ECE Flag Cnt
Duplicate Features
PSH Flag Cnt, Fwd Seg Size Avg, Bwd Seg Size Avg, Subflow Fwd
Pkts, Subflow Fwd Byts, Subflow Bwd Pkts, Subflow Bwd Byts
Correlated features
Bwd Pkt Len Mean, Idle Mean, Idle Std, Bwd IAT Tot, Fwd Act Data
Pkts, Active Min, Fwd Header Len, ACK Flag Cnt, Bwd Pks s, Pkt
Len Var, Active Max, Flow IAT Min, Timestamp day, Idle Max,
Label, Idle Min, Fwd Pkt Len Mean, TotLen Fwd Pkts, Pkt Len
Mean, Flow IAT Max, Bwd Pkt Len Min, Pkt Len Max, Pkt Size Avg,
Fwd IAT Min, Bwd IAT Max, Fwd IAT Mean, Timestamp hour, Bwd
IAT Min, Fwd IAT Max, Flow Byts s, Bwd IAT Mean.1
Final set of features for experiment
Src IP Cl, Src Port, Dst IP CL, Dst Port, Protocol, Flow Duration, Tot Fwd Pkts, Tot Bwd Pkts,
TotLen Bwd Pkts, Fwd Pkt Len Max, Fwd Pkt Len Min, Fwd Pkt Len Std, Bwd Pkt Len Max, Bwd
Pkt Len Std, Flow Pks s, Flow IAT Mean, Flow IAT Std, Fwd IAT Tot, Bwd IAT Mean, Bwd IAT
Std, Bwd PSH Flags, Bwd Header Len, Fwd Pkts s, Pkt Len Min, Pkt Len Std, SYN Flag Cnt,
Down Up Ratio, Init Bwd Win Byts, Active Mean, Active Std, Label, Timestamp minute,
Timestamp second
TABLE 2: Pre-processing of the IoT20 Dataset.

Feature Selection Applied Features Obtained
Sequential Backward Processing ’Pkt Len Var’, ’Fwd Header Len’, ’TotLen Fwd Pkts’,
’Timestamp hour’, ’Pkt Len Mean’, ’Fwd Pkt Len Mean’,
’Bwd Pkt Len Min’, ’Timestamp day’, ’Label’
Sequential Forward Processing ’Pkt Len Var’, ’Timestamp hour’, ’Pkt Len Mean’, ’Fwd Pkt
Len Mean’, ’Bwd Pkt Len Min’, ’Pkt Size Avg’, ’Timestamp
day’, ’Bwd Pkt Len Mean’, ’Label’
RFE Flow IAT Max’, ’ACK Flag Cnt’, ’Idle Max’, ’Timestamp
hour’, ’Fwd Act Data Pkts’, ’Flow IAT Min’, ’Idle Min’, ’Idle
Std’, ’Label’
TABLE 3: Feature selection techniques applied for Logistic Regression.
6. ANALYSIS
After pre-processing, the dataset was put to three feature selection processes to arrive at eight
highly ranked features. This was followed by three logistic regression algorithms. The first feature
selection method was Sequential Backward Processing. The results of SVC, XGBoost, and
Random Forest classification against the eight features from Sequential Backward Processing
are shown in Table 6. The ROC curve for the three classifiers is shown in Figure: 5, and the
Reliability Curve is shown in Figure 4. The second feature selection method was Sequential
Forward Processing. The results of SVC, XGBoost, and Random Forest classification against the
eight features from Sequential Forward Processing are shown in Table: IV. The ROC curve for
the three classifiers is shown in Figure 7, and the Reliability Curve is shown in Figure 6. The third
feature selection method was Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE). The results of SVC,
XGBoost, and Random Forest classification against the eight features from RFE are shown in
Table: IV. The ROC curve for the three classifiers is shown in Figure 9, and the Reliability Curve
is shown in Figure 8. From Table 4, we can conclude that all the three supervised feature
selection methods could predict with high accuracy malicious traffic vs. benign traffic. The number
of features used (eight) was random, but changes to the number used can impact accuracy
scores. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is a valuable metric that tells us how far apart our
predicted values are from our observed values in a model. The SVC classifier has larger RMSE
values in the three feature selection methods, implying a worse model fits the data. Overall, the
use of RFE yielded the best accuracy for the three classifiers.
Feature Selection
Method
Classifier Accuracy F1 Score Recall RMSE
Sequential Backward
Processing
SVC
XGBoost
Random Forest
98.20%
99.31%
99.23%
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.134096
0.082918
0.087708
Sequential Forward
Processing
SVC
XGBoost
Random Forest
98.48%
99.30%
99.21%
0.98
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.123455
0.083495
0.089068
Recursive Feature
Elimination
SVC
XGBoost
Random Forest
98.76%
99.79%
99.78%
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.111159
0.04599
0.047028
TABLE 4: Logistic Regression Results.

FIGURE 4: Reliability Curve after applying sequential backward feature selection.
FIGURE 5: ROC after applying sequential backward feature selection.

FIGURE 6: Reliability Curve after applying sequential forward feature selection.
FIGURE 7: ROC after applying sequential forward feature selection.

FIGURE 8: Reliability Curve after applying RFE feature selection.
FIGURE 9: ROC after applying RFE feature selection.

7. CONCLUSION
Security threats to IoT systems and devices translate to significant security risks because of the
inherent characteristics of the underlying technology. These characteristics make IoT
environments versatile, functional, and efficient but can be vulnerable to threat actors. This
research evaluates different supervised feature selection methods to predict malicious network
traffic against IoT devices. We employ three different feature selection methods and implement
three different logistic regression techniques for each selection method. We conclude that all the
three logistic regression techniques (SVC, Random Forest, and XGBoost) performed with high
accuracy. This implies that these techniques can be employed to predict an attack on IoT devices
in a supervised learning setting.
Security attacks on IoT devices can sometimes be challenging to detect since IP addresses can
be spoofed by the attacker, making it improper to be used as a machine learning feature. IP
addresses are also mostly used in context with other indicators during intrusion detection. While
this research can accurately predict an IoT attack, it should be noted that supervised learning is
limited to the quality of training data and features selected. Statistical measures for feature
selection must be carefully chosen and can significantly impact attack/intrusion predictions. The
choice of limiting selection to eight features and limiting the dataset used for the month of
May/2019 was purely for the research study. A different choice can result in different classifier
accuracy results. Lastly, security against any asset should always be deployed in layers following
risk, vulnerability, and threat analysis. A proactive effort by both manufacturers and the business
community towards leveraging existing Cybersecurity controls, technology, and industry best
practices frameworks can significantly mitigate the fast-rising IoT incident exposures.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Cyber Forensics Intelligence Center at Sam Houston State
University for allowing the use of its forensic labs.
9. REFERENCES
[1] “New Cisco Annual Internet Report Forecasts 5G to Support More Than 10% of Global
Mobile Connect — The Network.” Internet: https://newsroom:cisco:com/pressrelease-
content?type=webcontentfn&garticleId=2055169, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[2] S. Morgan, “Cybercrime To Cost The World $10.5 Trillion Annually By 2025,” Internet:
https://cybersecurityventures:com/hackerpocalypse-cybercrime-report-
2016/fn#g:f_g:text=Cyberattacksarethefastestgrowing;insizefn%g2Csophisticationandcost:fn
&gtext=oeDDoSattacksfn%g2Cransomwarefn%g2Cand;SharkonABC’sSharkTank, 2020,
[Jan. 05, 2021].
[3] NIST Glossary, Internet: https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/Cyber_Attack, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[4] “The ”Only” Coke Machine on the Internet.”, Internet:
https://www:cs:cmu:edu/f_gcoke/history long:txt, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[5] Avast Threat Intelligence Team, “Hacker creates seven new variants of the Mirai botnet”,
Internet: https://blog:avast:com/hacker-creates-seven-new-variants-of-the-mirai-botnet,
2018, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[6] “How 5G and IoT devices open up the attack surface on enterprises - Security Boulevard.”,
Internet: https://securityboulevard:com/2020/04/how-5g-and-iot-devicesopen-up-the-attack-
surface-on-enterprises/, 2020, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[7] P. A. Networks, “2020 Unit 42 IoT Threat Report”, Internet:
https://start:paloaltonetworks:com/unit-42-iot-threat-report, 2020, [Jan. 05, 2021].

[8] I. Ullah and Q. H. Mahmoud, “A Scheme for Generating a Dataset for Anomalous Activity
Detection in IoT Networks,” in Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif.
Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 12109 LNAI. Springer, may 2020, pp. 508–520. [On-
line]. Available: https://link:springer:com/chapter/10:1007/978-3-030-47358-7 52, [Jan. 05,
2021].
[9] H. Kang, D. H. Ahn, G. M. Lee, J. D. Yoo, K. H. Park, and H. K. Kim, “IoT network intrusion
dataset”, Internet: https://ieee-dataport:org/open-access/iot-network-intrusion-dataset, 2019,
[Jan. 05, 2021].
[10] “What is an Intrusion Detection System?”, Internet:
https://www:barracuda:com/glossary/intrusion-detection-system, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[11] A. Kumar, W. Glisson, and H. Cho, “Network Attack Detection Using an Unsupervised
Machine Learning Algorithm” in Proc. 53rd Hawaii Int.Conf. Syst. Sci. Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 2020, [On-line], Available: https://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-
53/st/cyber_threat_intelligence/8/, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[12] S. Mukherjee, H. Asnani, E. Lin, and S. Kannan, Jul 2019, “ClusterGAN: Latent space
clustering in generative adversarial networks,” in 33rd AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. AAAI 2019,
31st Innov. Appl. Artif. Intell. Conf. IAAI 2019 9th AAAI Symp. Educ. Adv. Artif. Intell. EAAI
2019, [On-line]. vol. 33, no. 01. AAAI Press, pp. 4610–4617.. Available: www:aaai:org, [Jan.
05, 2021].
[13] L. F. Carvalho, S. Barbon, L. D. S. Mendes, and M. L. Proença, Jul 2016, “Unsupervised
learning clustering and self-organized agents applied to help network management”, Expert
Syst. Appl., [On-line]. vol. 54, pp. 29–47, Available:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.032, [Jan. 05, 2021].
[14] J. Sakhnini, H. Karimipour, and A. Dehghantanha, Aug 2019, “Smart Grid Cyber Attacks
Detection Using Supervised Learning and Heuristic Feature Selection,” in Proc. 2019 7th Int.
Conf. Smart Energy Grid Eng. SEGE 2019. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Inc., [On-line] pp. 108–112., Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8859946, [Jan.
07, 2021].
[15] L. Xiao, X. Wan, X. Lu, Y. Zhang, and D. Wu, Sep 2018, “IoT Security Techniques Based on
Machine Learning: How Do IoT Devices Use AI to Enhance Security?” IEEE Signal Process.
Mag., [On-line] vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 41–49, Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8454402, [Jan. 07, 2021].
[16] M. Caron, P. Bojanowski, A. Joulin, and M. Douze, Jul 2018, “Deep Clustering for
Unsupervised Learning of Visual Features,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser.
Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), [On-line] vol. 11218 LNCS, pp. 139–156,
Available: http://arxiv:org/abs/1807:05520, [Jan. 07, 2021].
[17] E. Balkanli, J. Alves, and A. N. Zincir-Heywood, Jan 2014, “Supervised learning to detect
DDoS attacks,” in IEEE SSCI 2014 2014 IEEE Symp. Ser.Comput. Intell. - CICS 2014 2014
IEEE Symp. Comput. Intell. Cyber Secur. Proc. Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc., Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7013367, [Jan. 07, 2021].
[18] V. Morfino and S. Rampone, Mar 2020, “Towards Near-Real-Time Intrusion Detection for
IoT Devices using Supervised Learning and Apache Spark,” Electronics, [On-line] vol. 9, no.
3, p. 444, Available: https://www:mdpi:com/2079-9292/9/3/444, [Jan. 09, 2021].
[19] E. Hodo, X. Bellekens, A. Hamilton, P.-L. Dubouilh, E. Iorkyase, C. Tachtatzis, and R.
Atkinson, 2016, “Threat analysis of IoT networks Using Artificial Neural Network Intrusion

Detection System” 016 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and
Communications (ISNCC), [On-line] pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ISNCC.2016.7746067. Available:
https://ieeexplore:ieee:org/abstract/document/7746067/, [Jan. 09, 2021].
[20] C. Ioannou and V. Vassiliou, May 2019, “Classifying security attacks in IoT networks using
supervised learning” in Proc. - 15th Annu. Int. Conf. Distrib. Comput. Sens. Syst. DCOSS
2019. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., [On-line] pp. 652–658., Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8804727, [Jan. 11, 2021].
[21] E. Montalbano, “Report: Most Popular Home Routers Have ‘Critical’ Flaws,” Internet:
https://threatpost:com/report-mostpopular-home-routers-have-critical-flaws/157346/, 2020,
[Jan. 11, 2021].
[22] S. Grimaldi, A. Mahmood, and M. Gidlund, Dec 2018, “Real-Time Interference Identification
via Supervised Learning: Embedding Coexistence Awareness in IoT Devices,” IEEE Access,
[On-line] vol. 7, pp. 835–850, Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8570750,
[Jan. 11, 2021].
[23] E. Anthi, L. Williams, M. Slowinska, G. Theodorakopoulos, and P. Burnap, Oct 2019, “A
Supervised Intrusion Detection System for Smart Home IoT Devices,” IEEE Internet Things
J., [On-line] vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 9042–9053, Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8753563, [Jan. 11, 2021].
[24] I. El Naqa and M. J. Murphy, 2015, What Is Machine Learning? Cham: Springer
International Publishing, [On-line] pp. 3–11, Available: https://doi:org/10:1007/978-3-319-
18305-3 1, [Jan. 14, 2021].
[25] K. Kersting, Nov 2018, “Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: Two Fellow Travelers
on the Quest for Intelligent Behavior in Machines,” Front. Big Data, [On-line] vol. 1, p. 6,
Available: https://www:frontiersin:org/article/10:3389/fdata:2018:00006/full, [Jan. 15, 2021].
[26] Y. Charfaoui, “Hands-on with Feature Selection Techniques: Wrapper Methods,” Internet:
https://heartbeat:fritz:ai/hands-onwith-feature-selection-techniques-wrapper-methods-
5bb6d99b1274, 2020, [Jan. 15, 2021].
[27] “Recursive Feature Elimination — Yellowbrick v1.2.1 documentation.”, Internet:
https://www:scikit-yb:org/en/latest/api/modelselection/rfecv:html, [Jan. 15, 2021].
[28] “What is Supervised Learning?”, Internet: https://www:ibm:com/cloud/learn/supervised-
learning, [Jan. 16, 2021].
[29] “File:Random forest diagram complete.png - Wikimedia Commons.”, Internet:
https://commons:wikimedia:org/wiki/File:Randomforest diagram complete:png, [Jan. 16,
2021].
[30] “Caret: Classification and Regression Training.”, Internet: https://cran:r-
project:org/web/packages/caret/index:html, [Jan. 16, 2021].
[31] F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, P. and Thirion, B. and Grisel, O. and
Blondel, M. and Prettenhofer, A. and Weiss, R. and Dubourg, V. and Vanderplas, J. and
Passos, and E. Cournapeau, D. and Brucher, M. and Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, “Scikit-
learn: Machine Learning in fPgython.” Internet: https://scikit-
learn:org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn:svm:SVC:html, [Jan. 18, 2021].
[32] “Distributed Random Forest (DRF).”, Internet: http://docs:h2o:ai/h2o/latest-stable/h2o-
docs/data-science/drf:html, [Jan. 18, 2021].

[33] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, Aug 2016, “XGBoost,” Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl.
Discov. Data Min., Available: http://dx:doi:org/10:1145/2939672:2939785, [Jan. 18, 2021].
[34] V. Morde and V. A. Setty, “XGBoost Algorithm: Long May She Reign!”, Internet:
https://towardsdatascience:com/https-medium-com-vishalmordexgboost-algorithm-long-she-
may-rein-edd9f99be63d, 2019 [Jan. 18, 2021].
[35] S. Pafka, “Benchmarking Random Forest Implementations”, Internet:
http://datascience:la/benchmarking-random-forestimplementations/, 2015, [Jan. 18, 2021].
[36] K. P. Shung, “Accuracy, Precision, Recall or F1?”, Internet:
https://towardsdatascience:com/accuracy-precision-recall-orf1-331fb37c5cb9, 2015, [Jan.
18, 2021].

IoT Network Attack Detection using Supervised Machine Learning

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IoT Network Attack Detection using Supervised Machine Learning (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IoT Network Attack Detection using Supervised Machine Learning