A Lightweight Training Approach for MITM Detection in IoT Networks: Time-Window Selection and Generalization
Source abstract
Abstract
The world has adopted so many IoT devices but it comes with its own share of security vulnerabilities. One such issue is ARP spoofing attack which allows a man-in-the-middle to intercept packets and thereby modify the communication. Also, this allows an intruder to gain access to the user’s entire local area network. The ACI-IoT-2023 dataset captures ARP spoofing attacks, yet its absence of specified extracted features hinders its application in machine learning-aided intrusion detection systems. To combat this, we present a framework for ARP spoofing detection which improves the dataset by extracting ARP-specific features and evaluating their impact under different time-window configurations. Beyond generic feature engineering and model evaluation, we contribute by treating ARP spoofing as a time-window pattern and aligning the window length with observed spoofing persistence from the dataset timesheet—turning window choice into an explainable, repeatable setting for constrained IoT devices; by standardizing deployment-oriented efficiency profiling (inference latency, RAM usage, and model size) reported alongside accuracy, precision, recall and F1-scores to enable edge-feasible model selection; and by providing an ARP-focused, reproducible pipeline that reconstructs L2 labels from public PCAPs and derives missing link-layer indicators, yielding a transparent path from labeling to windowed features to training evaluation. Our research systematically analyzes five models with multiple time-windows, including Decision Tree, Random Forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, and K-Nearest Neighbors. This study shows that XGBoost and CatBoost provide maximum performance at the 1800 s window that corresponds to the longest spoofing duration in the timesheet, achieving accuracy greater than 0.93%, precision above 0.95%, recall near 0.91%, and F1-scores above 0.93%. Although Decision Tree has the least inference latency (∼0.4 ms.), its lower recall risks missed attacks. By contrast, XGBoost and CatBoost sustain strong detection with less than 6$ ms inference and moderate RAM, indicating practicality for IoT deployment. We also observe diminishing returns beyond (∼1800 s) due to temporal over-aggregation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting · Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Chung Cheng Institute of Technology, National Defense University, Taoyuan 335009, Taiwan
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Chung Cheng Institute of Technology, National Defense University, Taoyuan 335009, Taiwan
Funding
National Science and Technology Council under Grant Nos. · National Defense Science and Technology Academic
References (61)
Show source-provided references
1. AI techniques for IoT-based DDoS attack detection: Taxonomies, comprehensive review and research challenges10.1016/j.cosrev.2024.100631 ↗
2. Shafin, S.S., Karmakar, G., and Mareels, I. (2023). Obfuscated Memory Malware Detection in Resource-Constrained IoT Devices for Smart City Applications. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23115348 ↗
3. False data injection attack in smart grid cyber physical system: Issues, challenges, and future direction10.1016/j.compeleceng.2023.108638 ↗
4. Bastian, N., Bierbrauer, D., McKenzie, M., and Nack, E. (2025, March 05). ACI IoT Network Traffic Dataset 2023. Available online: https://ieee-dataport.org/documents/aci-iot-network-traffic-dataset-2023.
5. Forrest, S., Hofmeyr, S.A., Somayaji, A., and Longstaff, T.A. (1996, January 6–8). A sense of self for unix processes. Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.
6. Intrusion detection by machine learning: A review10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.029 ↗
7. A Survey of Data Mining and Machine Learning Methods for Cyber Security Intrusion Detection10.1109/COMST.2015.2494502 ↗
8. A survey of intrusion detection in the Internet of Things10.1016/j.jnca.2017.02.009 ↗
9. Network intrusion detection for IoT security based on learning techniques10.1109/COMST.2019.2896380 ↗
10. Staddon, E., Loscri, V., and Mitton, N. (2021). Attack categorisation for IoT applications in critical infrastructures: A survey. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11167228 ↗
11. Nack, E.A., McKenzie, M.C., and Bastian, N.D. (November, January 28). ACI-IoT-2023: A Robust Dataset for Internet of Things Network Security Analysis. Proceedings of the MILCOM 2024–2024 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), Washington, DC, USA.10.1109/MILCOM61039.2024.10773916 ↗
12. An Intrusion-Detection Model10.1109/TSE.1987.232894 ↗
13. Roesch, M. (1999, January 7–12). Snort: Lightweight Intrusion Detection for Networks. Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Systems Administration Conference (LISA ’99), Seattle, WA, USA.
14. Paxson, V. (1998, January 26–29). Bro: A System for Detecting Network Intruders in Real-Time. Proceedings of the 7th USENIX Security Symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA.
15. An Overview of Anomaly Detection Techniques: Existing Solutions and Latest Trends10.1016/j.comnet.2007.02.001 ↗
16. Modeling intrusion detection system using hybrid intelligent systems10.1016/j.jnca.2005.06.003 ↗
17. Intrusion Detection System: A Comprehensive Review10.1016/j.jnca.2012.09.004 ↗
18. Network anomaly detection: Methods, systems and tools10.1109/SURV.2013.052213.00046 ↗
19. A Holistic Review of Network Anomaly Detection Systems: A Comprehensive Survey10.1016/j.jnca.2018.12.006 ↗
20. Bhattacharyya, D.K., and Kalita, J.K. (2013). Network Anomaly Detection: A Machine Learning Perspective, CRC Press.10.1201/b15088 ↗
21. Anomaly detection: A survey10.1145/1541880.1541882 ↗
22. Ensemble based collaborative and distributed intrusion detection systems: A survey10.1016/j.jnca.2016.03.011 ↗
23. Doshi, R., Apthorpe, N., and Feamster, N. (2018, January 24). Machine learning ddos detection for consumer internet of things devices. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE security and privacy workshops (SPW), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/SPW.2018.00013 ↗
24. Mukkamala, S., Janoski, G., and Sung, A. (2002, January 12–17). Intrusion Detection Using Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines. Proceedings of the 2002 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1007/978-3-7908-1782-9_10 ↗
25. A Deep Learning Approach for Intrusion Detection Using Recurrent Neural Networks10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2762418 ↗
26. Deep learning for cyber security intrusion detection: Approaches, datasets, and comparative study
27. Albulayhi, K., Abu Al-Haija, Q., Alsuhibany, S.A., Jillepalli, A.A., Ashrafuzzaman, M., and Sheldon, F.T. (2022). IoT intrusion detection using machine learning with a novel high performing feature selection method. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12105015 ↗
28. Kikissagbe, B.R., and Adda, M. (2024). Machine Learning-Based Intrusion Detection Methods in IoT Systems: A Comprehensive Review. Electronics, 13.10.3390/electronics13183601 ↗
29. Cloud computing-based forensic analysis for collaborative network security management system10.1109/TST.2013.6449406 ↗
30. Sommer, R., and Paxson, V. (2010, January 16–19). Outside the Closed World: On Using Machine Learning for Network Intrusion Detection. Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, USA.10.1109/SP.2010.25 ↗
31. The base-rate fallacy and the difficulty of intrusion detection10.1145/357830.357849 ↗
32. Yao, W., Hu, L., Hou, Y., and Li, X. (2023). A lightweight intelligent network intrusion detection system using one-class autoencoder and ensemble learning for IoT. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23084141 ↗
33. Rihan, S.D.A., Anbar, M., and Alabsi, B.A. (2023). Meta-Learner-Based Approach for Detecting Attacks on Internet of Things Networks. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23198191 ↗
34. Arshad, J., Azad, M.A., Amad, R., Salah, K., Alazab, M., and Iqbal, R. (2020). A Review of Performance, Energy and Privacy of Intrusion Detection Systems for IoT. Electronics, 9.10.3390/electronics9040629 ↗
35. Thanigaivelan, N.K., Nigussie,, E., Kanth, R.A., Virtanen, S., and Isoaho, J. (2016, January 9–12). Distributed Internal Anomaly Detection System for the Internet of Things. Proceedings of the 2016 13th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA.10.1109/CCNC.2016.7444797 ↗
36. Complexity-driven model compression for resource-constrained deep learning on edge10.1109/TAI.2024.3353157 ↗
37. Edge Analytics in the Internet of Things10.1109/MPRV.2015.32 ↗
38. Federated-learning-based anomaly detection for IoT security attacks10.1109/JIOT.2021.3077803 ↗
39. Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Grauman, K., Cesa-Bianchi, N., and Garnett, R. (2018, January 3–8). Collaborative Learning for Deep Neural Networks. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada.
40. Deep reinforcement learning for resource protection and real-time detection in IoT environment10.1109/JIOT.2020.2974281 ↗
41. Balhareth, G., and Ilyas, M. (2024). Optimized Intrusion Detection for IoMT Networks with Tree-Based Machine Learning and Filter-Based Feature Selection. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24175712 ↗
42. Alsubhi, K., Alharbi, F., Alofi, A., Alnefaie, E., Shakshir, A., and Ghaleb, B. (2024). A Secured Intrusion Detection System for Mobile Edge Computing. Appl. Sci., 14.10.2139/ssrn.4699806 ↗
43. Mrabet, H., Belguith, S., Alhomoud, A., and Jemai, A. (2020). A survey of IoT security based on a layered architecture of sensing and data analysis. Sensors, 20.10.3390/s20133625 ↗
44. Wang, S., Gomez, K., Sithamparanathan, K., Asghar, M.R., Russello, G., and Zanna, P. (2021). Mitigating DDoS Attacks in SDN-Based IoT Networks Leveraging Secure Control and Data Plane Algorithm. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11030929 ↗
45. Stolfo, S., Fan, W., Lee, W., Prodromidis, A., and Chan, P. (2025, March 05). KDD Cup 1999 Data. UCI Machine Learning Repository. Available online: https://kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/kddcup99.html.
46. Tavallaee, M., Bagheri, E., Lu, W., and Ghorbani, A.A. (2009, January 8–10). A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications, Ottawa, ON, Canada.10.1109/CISDA.2009.5356528 ↗
47. Towards the development of realistic botnet dataset in the internet of things for network forensic analytics: Bot-iot dataset10.1016/j.future.2019.05.041 ↗
48. Guerra-Manzanares, A., Medina-Galindo, J., Bahsi, H., and Nõmm, S. (2020, January 25–27). MedBIoT: Generation of an IoT Botnet Dataset in a Medium-sized IoT Network. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy - ICISSP. INSTICC, Valletta, Malta.10.5220/0009187802070218 ↗
49. Hindy, H., Tachtatzis, C., Atkinson, R., Bayne, E., and Bellekens, X. (2020). Mqtt-iot-ids2020: Mqtt internet of things intrusion detection dataset. IEEE Dataport.
50. 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 (ICISSP), Madeira, Portugal.10.5220/0006639801080116 ↗
51. García, S., Parmisano, A., and Erquiaga, M.J. (2025, March 05). IoT-23: A Labeled Dataset with Malicious and Benign IoT Network Traffic. Available online: https://www.stratosphereips.org/datasets-iot23.
52. Bruschi, D., Ornaghi, A., and Rosti, E. (2003, January 8–12). S-ARP: A secure address resolution protocol. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Vegas, NV, USA.
53. Cisco Systems (2025, March 05). Understanding and Configuring Dynamic ARP Inspection. Technical Report, Cisco Technical Documentation. Available online: https://www.cisco.com.
54. Ramachandran, A., and Nandi, S. (2005, January 19–21). Detecting ARP Spoofing: An Active Technique. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems Security (ICISS), Kolkata, India.10.1007/11593980_18 ↗
55. Detecting and Preventing ARP Spoofing Attacks Using Real- Time Data Analysis and Machine Learning10.55524/ijircst.2024.12.5.7 ↗
56. ARP Spoofing Detection Using Machine Learning Classifiers: An Experimental Study10.1007/s10115-024-02219-y ↗
57. Abdulla, H., Al-Raweshidy, H., and S Awad, W. (2020, January 13). ARP spoofing detection for IoT networks using neural networks. Proceedings of the Industrial Revolution & Business Management: 11th Annual PwR Doctoral Symposium (PWRDS), Manama, Bahrain.10.2139/ssrn.3659129 ↗
58. Gao, W., Sun, Y., Fu, Q., Wu, Z., Ma, X., Zheng, K., and Huang, X. (2018, January 19–21). ARP poisoning prevention in Internet of Things. Proceedings of the 2018 9th international conference on information technology in medicine and education (ITME), Hangzhou, China.10.1109/ITME.2018.00166 ↗
59. Sensor Self-Declaration of Numeric Data Reliability in Internet of Things10.1109/TR.2024.3416967 ↗
60. Zhang, H.J., Yang, K., Ran, P., He, S., and Chen, J. (2025). Reliable evaluation for the AI-enabled intrusion detection system from data perspective. PLoS ONE, 20.10.1371/journal.pone.0334157 ↗
61. A new perspective towards the development of robust data-driven intrusion detection for industrial control systems10.1016/j.net.2020.05.012 ↗