Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35684788›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Novel Forward-Propagation Workflow Assessment Method for Malicious Packet Detection.

Nagaiah Mohanan Balamurugan, Raju Kannadasan, Mohammed H Alsharif, Peerapong Uthansakul

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nagaiah Mohanan BalamuruganDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Sriperumbudur, Chennai 602117, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6166-1385
Raju KannadasanDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Sriperumbudur, Chennai 602117, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7622-8261
Mohammed H AlsharifDepartment of Electrical Engineering, College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8579-5444
Peerapong UthansakulSchool of Telecommunication Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-7108-9263
Sri Venkateswara University · INSejong University · KRSuranaree University of Technology · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent times, there has been a huge upsurge in malicious attacks despite sophisticated technologies in digital network data transmission. This research proposes an innovative method that utilizes the forward-propagation workflow of the convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm to detect malicious information effectively. The performance comparison of this approach was accomplished using accuracy, precision, false-positive and false-negative rates with k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM) algorithms. To detect malicious packets in the original dataset, an experiment was carried out using CNN's forward-propagation workflow method (N = 11) as well as the KNN and the SVM machine learning algorithms with a significant value of 0.005. The accuracy, precision, false-positive and false-negative rates were evaluated to detect malicious packets present in normal data packets. The mean performance measures of the proposed forward-propagation method of the CNN algorithm were evaluated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) tool. The results showed that the mean accuracy (98.84%) and mean precision (99.08%) of the proposed forward propagation of the CNN algorithm appeared to be higher than the mean accuracy (95.55%) and mean precision (95.97%) of the KNN algorithm, as well as the mean accuracy (94.43%) and mean precision (94.58%) of the SVM algorithm. Moreover, the false-positive rate (1.93%) and false-negative rate (3.49%) of the proposed method appeared to be significantly higher than the KNN algorithm's false-positive (4.04%) and false-negative (6.24%) as well as the SVM algorithm's false-positive (5.03%) and false-negative rate (7.21%). Hence, it can be concluded that the forward-propagation method of the CNN algorithm is better than the KNN and SVM algorithms at detecting malicious information.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSupport Vector MachineCluster AnalysisNeural Networks, ComputerWorkflowconvolutional neural networkdeep learningk-nearest neighbormachine learningnovel forward propagationsupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID35684788
PMCPMC9185481
OpenAlexW4281743116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.