journal article·2022-01-14Open access

On the Detection Capabilities of Signature-Based Intrusion Detection Systems in the Context of Web Attacks

Jesús Díaz-Verdejo, Javier Muñoz-Calle, Antonio Estepa Alonso, Rafael Estepa Alonso, Germán Madinabeitia

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 2

Abstract

Signature-based Intrusion Detection Systems (SIDS) play a crucial role within the arsenal of security components of most organizations. They can find traces of known attacks in the network traffic or host events for which patterns or signatures have been pre-established. SIDS include standard packages of detection rulesets, but only those rules suited to the operational environment should be activated for optimal performance. However, some organizations might skip this tuning process and instead activate default off-the-shelf rulesets without understanding its implications and trade-offs. In this work, we help gain insight into the consequences of using predefined rulesets in the performance of SIDS. We experimentally explore the performance of three SIDS in the context of web attacks. In particular, we gauge the detection rate obtained with predefined subsets of rules for Snort, ModSecurity and Nemesida using seven attack datasets. We also determine the precision and rate of alert generated by each detector in a real-life case using a large trace from a public webserver. Results show that the maximum detection rate achieved by the SIDS under test is insufficient to protect systems effectively and is lower than expected for known attacks. Our results also indicate that the choice of predefined settings activated on each detector strongly influences its detection capability and false alarm rate. Snort and ModSecurity scored either a very poor detection rate (activating the less-sensitive predefined ruleset) or a very poor precision (activating the full ruleset). We also found that using various SIDS for a cooperative decision can improve the precision or the detection rate, but not both. Consequently, it is necessary to reflect upon the role of these open-source SIDS with default configurations as core elements for protection in the context of web attacks. Finally, we provide an efficient method for systematically determining which rules deactivate from a ruleset to significantly reduce the false alarm rate for a target operational environment. We tested our approach using Snort’s ruleset in our real-life trace, increasing the precision from 0.015 to 1 in less than 16 h of work.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting · Network Packet Processing and Optimization

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Signal Theory, Telematics and Communications, CITIC, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain

Department of Telematics Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Sevilla, 41092 Seville, Spain

Funding

MICIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 · Regional Government of Andalusia · University of Seville

References (48)

Show source-provided references
1. Ghafir, I., Prenosil, V., Svoboda, J., and Hammoudeh, M. (2016, January 22–24). A survey on network security monitoring systems. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud Workshops (FiCloudW), Vienna, Austria.10.1109/W-FiCloud.2016.30 ↗
2. A survey and taxonomy of the fuzzy signature-based intrusion detection systems10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106301 ↗
3. A holistic review of network anomaly detection systems: A comprehensive survey10.1016/j.jnca.2018.12.006 ↗
4. Holm, H. (2014, January 6–9). Signature based intrusion detection for zero-day attacks: (not) a closed chapter?. Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA.10.1109/HICSS.2014.600 ↗
5. (2021, November 27). Watchguard Launches 2016 Q4 Internet Security Report. Available online: https://www.northamber.com/sites/default/files/marketing/solutionsSite/PDFs/WatchGuard%20-Internet%20Security%20Report%20Q4%202016%20-_v1.pdf.
6. Anomaly-based intrusion detection systems: The requirements, methods, measurements, and datasets10.1002/ett.4240 ↗
7. Prevention and Fighting against Web Attacks through Anomaly Detection Technology. A Systematic Review
8. Survey of intrusion detection systems: Techniques, datasets and challenges10.1186/s42400-019-0038-7 ↗
9. Hussein, S.M. (2016, January 15–17). Performance evaluation of intrusion detection system using anomaly and signature based algorithms to reduction false alarm rate and detect unknown attacks. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, NV, USA.10.1109/CSCI.2016.0203 ↗
10. An efficient proactive artificial immune system based anomaly detection and prevention system10.1016/j.eswa.2016.03.042 ↗
11. Akash, G., and Maheshwari, P. (2016, January 22–23). Performance analysis of snort-based intrusion detection system. Proceedings of the 2016 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India.
12. Singh, J.J., Samuel, H., and Zavarsky, P. (2018, January 8–10). Impact of paranoia levels on the effectiveness of the modsecurity web application firewall. Proceedings of the 2018 1st International Conference on Data Intelligence and Security (ICDIS), South Padre Island, TX, USA.10.1109/ICDIS.2018.00030 ↗
13. Holm, H., and Ekstedt, M. (2013). Estimates on the effectiveness of web application firewalls against targeted attacks. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur., 21.10.1108/IMCS-11-2012-0064 ↗
14. False alarm minimization techniques in signature-based intrusion detection systems: A survey10.1016/j.comcom.2014.04.012 ↗
15. Performance comparison of intrusion detection systems and application of machine learning to Snort system10.1016/j.future.2017.10.016 ↗
16. Deep learning approaches for anomaly-based intrusion detection systems: A survey, taxonomy, and open issues10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105124 ↗
17. Hadi, L., Ahmad, J., and Mtetwa, N. (2019). A heuristic intrusion detection system for Internet-of-Things (IoT). Intelligent Computing-Proceedings of the Computing Conference, Springer.
18. A methodology for conducting efficient sanitization of http training datasets10.1016/j.future.2020.03.033 ↗
19. Performance comparison and detection analysis in snort and suricata environment10.1007/s11277-016-3209-9 ↗
20. Murphy, B.R. (2019). Comparing the Performance of Intrusion Detection Systems: Snort and Suricata. [Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado Technical University].
21. Automatic generation of http intrusion signatures by selective identification of anomalies10.1016/j.cose.2015.09.007 ↗
22. Gu, G., Fogla, P., Dagon, D., Lee, W., and Skorić, B. (2006, January 21–24). Measuring intrusion detection capability: An information-theoretic approach. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, ASIACCS ’06, Taipei, Taiwan.10.1145/1128817.1128834 ↗
23. Investigating the problem of ids false alarms: An experimental study using snort
24. Afzal, Z., and Lindskog, S. (July, January 30). Ids rule management made easy. Proceedings of the 2016 8th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Ploiesti, Romania.10.1109/ECAI.2016.7861119 ↗
25. Gallina, B., Skavhaug, A., and Bitsch, F. (2018). Diversity in open source intrusion detection systems. Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-99130-6 ↗
26. False alarm reduction in signature-based ids: Game theory approach10.1002/sec.1661 ↗
27. Survey on anomaly detection using data mining techniques10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.220 ↗
28. Waagsnes, H., and Ulltveit-Moe, N. (2018, January 22–24). Intrusion detection system test framework for scada systems. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy-ICISSP, Madeira, Portugal.10.5220/0006588202750285 ↗
29. Albin, E., and Rowe, N.C. (2012, January 26–29). A realistic experimental comparison of the suricata and snort intrusion-detection systems. Proceedings of the 2012 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, Fukuoka-shi, Japan.10.1109/WAINA.2012.29 ↗
30. Chitrakar, R., and Huang, C. (2012, January 27–31). Anomaly based intrusion detection using hybrid learning approach of combining k-medoids clustering and naïve bayes classification. Proceedings of the 2012 8th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Shanghai, China.10.1109/WiCOM.2012.6478433 ↗
31. A hybrid layered architecture for detection and analysis of network based zero-day attack10.1016/j.comcom.2017.01.019 ↗
32. MLEsIDSs: Machine learning-based ensembles for intrusion detection systems—A review10.1007/s11227-020-03196-z ↗
33. Modeling intrusion detection system using hybrid intelligent systems10.1016/j.jnca.2005.06.003 ↗
34. Helad: A novel network anomaly detection model based on heterogeneous ensemble learning10.1016/j.comnet.2019.107049 ↗
35. Enhancing ids performance through comprehensive alert post-processing10.1016/j.cose.2013.03.005 ↗
36. A quality metric for IDS signatures: In the wild the size matters10.1186/1687-417X-2013-7 ↗
37. How much training data is enough? a case study for http anomaly-based intrusion detection10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2977591 ↗
38. (2021, November 27). Modsecurity Open Source Web Application Firewall. Available online: https://github.com/SpiderLabs/ModSecurity.
39. (2021, November 27). Snort-Network Intrusion Detection & Prevention System. Available online: https://www.snort.org.
40. Guidelines/recommendations on best practices in fine tuning ids alarms
41. Yu, Z., Tsai, J.J.P., and Weigert, T. (2008). An adaptive automatically tuning intrusion detection system. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst., 3.10.1145/1380422.1380425 ↗
42. Cross-domain collaboration for improved ids rule set selection
43. Kumar, M., and Hanumanthappa, M. (2014, January 14–16). Self tuning ids for changing environment. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks, Bhopal, India.10.1109/CICN.2014.227 ↗
44. Badawy, M.A., El-Fishawy, N.A., and Elshakankiry, O. (2014, January 7–9). Using patch management tools to enhance the signature customization for ids based on vulnerability scanner. Proceedings of the 2014 11th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, Las Vegas, NV, USA.10.1109/ITNG.2014.78 ↗
45. (2021, November 27). Nemesida Web Application Firewall. Available online: https://nemesida-waf.com.
46. (2021, November 27). Fwaf-Machine-Learning-Driven-Web-Application-Firewall. Available online: https://github.com/faizann24/Fwaf-Machine-Learning-driven-Web-Application-Firewall.
47. Verdejo, J.E.D., Alonso, R.M.E., Alonso, A.J.E., Luque, G.M., and Rodriguez, D. (2018). Metodología para la generación de conjuntos de datos de ataques basados en uri de http. Actas de las Cuartas Jornadas Nacionales de Investigación en Ciberseguridad, Mondragon Unibertsitatea. [1st ed.].
48. Soriano, M., Qing, S., and López, J. (2010). Hybrid detection of application layer attacks using markov models for normality and attacks. Information and Communications Security, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-17650-0 ↗