ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Detecting Unusual Repetitive Patterns of Behavior Indicative of a Loop-Based Attack in IoT.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the high risk of Internet of Things (IoT) device compromise, it is crucial to discuss the attack detection aspect. However, due to the physical limitations of IoT, such as battery life and sensing and processing power, the widely used detection techniques, such as signature-based or anomaly-based detection, are quite ineffective. This research extracted loop-based cases from the transmission session dataset of "CTU-IoT-Malware-Capture-7-1" ("Linux, Mirai") and implemented a loop-based detection machine learning approach. The research employed nine machine learning models to illustrate how the loop patterns of the datasets can facilitate detection. The results of this study indicate that the XGBoost model achieves the best performance in terms of "Accuracy: 8.85%", "Precision: 96.57% (Class)", "Recall: 96.72% (Class 1)", and "F1-Score: 6.24%". The XGBoost model demonstrated exceptional performance across all metrics, indicating its capability in handling large IoT datasets effectively. It provides not only high accuracy but also strong generalization, which is crucial for detecting intricate and diverse patterns of malicious behavior in IoT networks. Its precision and recall performance further highlight its robustness in identifying both attack and normal activity, reducing the chances of false positives and negatives, making it a superior choice for real-time IoT threat detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.