Chained Anomaly Detection Models for Federated Learning: An Intrusion Detection Case Study
Source abstract
Abstract
The adoption of machine learning and deep learning is on the rise in the cybersecurity domain where these AI methods help strengthen traditional system monitoring and threat detection solutions. However, adversaries too are becoming more effective in concealing malicious behavior amongst large amounts of benign behavior data. To address the increasing time-to-detection of these stealthy attacks, interconnected and federated learning systems can improve the detection of malicious behavior by joining forces and pooling together monitoring data. The major challenge that we address in this work is that in a federated learning setup, an adversary has many more opportunities to poison one of the local machine learning models with malicious training samples, thereby influencing the outcome of the federated learning and evading detection. We present a solution where contributing parties in federated learning can be held accountable and have their model updates audited. We describe a permissioned blockchain-based federated learning method where incremental updates to an anomaly detection machine learning model are chained together on the distributed ledger. By integrating federated learning with blockchain technology, our solution supports the auditing of machine learning models without the necessity to centralize the training data. Experiments with a realistic intrusion detection use case and an autoencoder for anomaly detection illustrate that the increased complexity caused by blockchain technology has a limited performance impact on the federated learning, varying between 5 and 15%, while providing full transparency over the distributed training process of the neural network. Furthermore, our blockchain-based federated learning solution can be generalized and applied to more sophisticated neural network architectures and other use cases.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications · Software System Performance and Reliability
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
imec-DistriNet-KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
MTA SZTAKI, Kende u. 13-17, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary
Funding
H2020 Project EXCELL · imec ICON RADIANCE
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. Sadeghi, A.R., Wachsmann, C., and Waidner, M. (2015, January 8–12). Security and Privacy Challenges in Industrial Internet of Things. Proceedings of the 2015 52nd ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2744769.2747942 ↗
2. The intelligent industry of the future: A survey on emerging trends, research challenges and opportunities in Industry 4.0
3. Security Analytics: Essential Data Analytics Knowledge for Cybersecurity Professionals and Students10.1109/MSP.2015.121 ↗
4. Anomaly Detection: A Survey10.1145/1541880.1541882 ↗
5. Verma, R. (2018, January 19–21). Security Analytics: Adapting Data Science for Security Challenges. Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Workshop on Security and Privacy Analytics, Tempe, AZ, USA.10.1145/3180445.3180456 ↗
6. Konecný, J., McMahan, H.B., Yu, F.X., Richtárik, P., Suresh, A.T., and Bacon, D. (arXiv, 2016). Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency, arXiv.
7. Singh, A., and Zhu, X.J. (2017, January 20–22). Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
8. Du, M., Li, F., Zheng, G., and Srikumar, V. (November, January 30). DeepLog: Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis from System Logs Through Deep Learning. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Dallas, TX, USA.10.1145/3133956.3134015 ↗
9. Hitaj, B., Ateniese, G., and Perez-Cruz, F. (November, January 30). Deep Models Under the GAN: Information Leakage from Collaborative Deep Learning. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Dallas, TX, USA.10.1145/3133956.3134012 ↗
10. An Introduction to Intrusion Detection10.1145/332159.332161 ↗
11. Inayat, Z., Gani, A., Anuar, N.B., Khan, M.K., and Anwar, S. (2016). Intrusion response systems: Foundations, design, and challenges. J. Netw. Comput. Appl., 53–74.10.1016/j.jnca.2015.12.006 ↗
12. Karim, I., Vien, Q.T., Le, T.A., and Mapp, G. (2017). A Comparative Experimental Design and Performance Analysis of Snort-Based Intrusion Detection System in Practical Computer Networks. Computers, 1.10.3390/computers6010006 ↗
13. A Survey of Intrusion Detection Techniques10.1016/0167-4048(93)90029-5 ↗
14. A Survey of Intrusion Detection Techniques for Cyber-physical Systems10.1145/2542049 ↗
15. Taxonomy and Survey of Collaborative Intrusion Detection10.1145/2716260 ↗
16. A Survey of Intrusion Detection in Internet of Things10.1016/j.jnca.2017.02.009 ↗
17. Rubinstein, B.I., Nelson, B., Huang, L., Joseph, A.D., Lau, S.h., Rao, S., Taft, N., and Tygar, J.D. (2009, January 4–6). ANTIDOTE: Understanding and Defending Against Poisoning of Anomaly Detectors. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/1644893.1644895 ↗
18. Biggio, B., Nelson, B., and Laskov, P. (July, January 26). Poisoning Attacks Against Support Vector Machines. Proceedings of the 29th International Coference on International Conference on Machine Learning, Edinburgh, UK.
19. Automated poisoning attacks and defenses in malware detection systems: An adversarial machine learning approach10.1016/j.cose.2017.11.007 ↗
20. Deep Learning-Based Intrusion Detection With Adversaries10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2854599 ↗
21. Kim, K.J., and Kim, H. (2019). Adversarial Attacks on SDN-Based Deep Learning IDS System. Mobile and Wireless Technology 2018, Springer.10.1007/978-981-13-1059-1 ↗
22. Madan, I., Saluja, S., and Zhao, A. (2018, November 22). Automated Bitcoin Trading via Machine Learning Algorithms. Available online: http://cs229.stanford.edu/proj2014/Isaac%20Madan,%20Shaurya%20Saluja,%20Aojia%20Zhao,Automated%20Bitcoin%20Trading%20via%20Machine%20Learning%20Algorithms.pdf.
23. Bikowski, K. (2016). Application of Machine Learning Algorithms for Bitcoin Automated Trading. Machine Intelligence and Big Data in Industry, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30315-4_14 ↗
24. Chen, W., Zheng, Z., Cui, J., Ngai, E., Zheng, P., and Zhou, Y. (2018, January 23–27). Detecting Ponzi Schemes on Ethereum: Towards Healthier Blockchain Technology. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, Lyon, France.10.1145/3178876.3186046 ↗
25. Bogner, A. (2017, January 11–15). Seeing is Understanding: Anomaly Detection in Blockchains with Visualized Features. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Maui, HI, USA.10.1145/3123024.3123157 ↗
26. When Intrusion Detection Meets Blockchain Technology: A Review10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2799854 ↗
27. Weng, J., Weng, J., Zhang, J., Li, M., Zhang, Y., and Luo, W. (2018, December 16). DeepChain: Auditable and Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning with Blockchain-Based Incentive. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/DeepChain%3A-Auditable-and-Privacy-Preserving-Deep-Weng-Weng/07f229cc6e5b80fc8ffbbb3e4db85142466f55a9.
28. Sharafaldin, I., Lashkari, A.H., and Ghorbani, A.A. (2018, January 22–24). Toward Generating a New Intrusion Detection Dataset and Intrusion Traffic Characterization. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy, Funchal, Portugal.10.5220/0006639801080116 ↗
29. Chalapathy, R., Menon, A.K., and Chawla, S. (arXiv, 2018). Anomaly Detection using One-Class Neural Networks, arXiv.
30. Deep One-Class Classification
31. Intelligent intrusion detection systems using artificial neural networks10.1016/j.icte.2018.04.003 ↗
32. Ryan, J., Lin, M.J., and Miikkulainen, R. (1998). Intrusion Detection with Neural Networks. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 10, MIT Press.
33. Hodo, E., Bellekens, X., Hamilton, A., Dubouilh, P., Iorkyase, E., Tachtatzis, C., and Atkinson, R. (2016, January 11–13). Threat analysis of IoT networks using artificial neural network intrusion detection system. Proceedings of the 2016 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC), Hammamet, Tunisia.10.1109/ISNCC.2016.7746067 ↗
34. Baldi, P. (2011, January 2). Autoencoders, Unsupervised Learning and Deep Architectures. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Unsupervised and Transfer Learning Workshop, Washington, DC, USA.
35. Sun, X., Pan, Z., and Bertino, E. (2018). SU-IDS: A Semi-supervised and Unsupervised Framework for Network Intrusion Detection. Cloud Computing and Security, Springer.
36. Radford, B.J., Richardson, B.D., and Davis, S.E. (arXiv, 2018). Sequence Aggregation Rules for Anomaly Detection in Computer Network Traffic, arXiv.
37. McMahan, H.B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., and y Arcas, B.A. (arXiv, 2018). Federated Learning of Deep Networks using Model Averaging, arXiv.
38. Jagielski, M., Oprea, A., Biggio, B., Liu, C., Nita-Rotaru, C., and Li, B. (2018, January 21–23). Manipulating Machine Learning: Poisoning Attacks and Countermeasures for Regression Learning. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/SP.2018.00057 ↗
39. Wang, Y., and Chaudhuri, K. (arXiv, 2018). Data Poisoning Attacks against Online Learning, arXiv.
40. Steinhardt, J., Koh, P.W., and Liang, P. (arXiv, 2017). Certified Defenses for Data Poisoning Attacks, arXiv.
41. Greenspan, G. (2018, December 16). Multichain Private Blockchain—White Paper. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03691.pdf.
42. (2018, November 22). Deeplearning4j: Open-Source, Distributed Deep Learning for the JVM. Available online: https://deeplearning4j.org.