Operationally Constrained Zero-Day Intrusion Detection with Target-FPR Calibration and Similarity Graph Construction
Source abstract
Abstract
Intrusion detectors are often evaluated using average metrics at unconstrained thresholds, yet deployments require explicit control over false alarms. We investigate zero-day (out-of-distribution, OOD) intrusion detection under a target-FPR calibrated protocol, where a threshold is set on benign validation traffic to satisfy a target false positive rate α and transferred, unchanged, to a seen-test and OOD-test. Using CICIDS2017-derived host-session nodes aggregated in 1 min and 5 min windows, we compare tabular baselines, message-passing GNNs on a rule-based graph, and employ a method that builds a k-nearest-neighbor similarity graph with lightweight feature pre-smoothing. Robustness is measured using the OOD violation ratio, percentile tail risk, and feasibility under explicit false-alarm budgets. Base-graph GNNs exhibit heavy-tailed false-alarm amplification under OOD shifts: at α = 0.001, the p95 violation ratio reaches 68.50 (1 m) and 67.95 (5 m). In contrast, the proposed method reduces p95 to 3.41 (1 m) and 1.15 (5 m) and improves budget feasibility. We further verify robustness beyond a single held-out family by evaluating additional unseen-family splits (e.g., DDoS and DDoS+DoS) under the same calibrated operating point. We also quantify deployment-oriented cost via edge-list size and practical parsing/loading time. These findings suggest that similarity-based graphs with light pre-smoothing improve deployability under distribution shifts.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Software-Defined Networks and 5G · Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of IT Convergence and Information Security, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. An introduction to ROC analysis10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 ↗
2. An intrusion-detection model10.1109/TSE.1987.232894 ↗
3. A unifying view on dataset shift in classification10.1016/j.patcog.2011.06.019 ↗
4. The base-rate fallacy and the difficulty of intrusion detection10.1145/357830.357849 ↗
5. Bejtlich, R. (2013). The Practice of Network Security Monitoring: Understanding Incident Detection and Response, No Starch Press.
6. Hendrycks, D., and Gimpel, K. (2016). A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-Of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networks. arXiv.
7. Liang, S., Li, Y., and Srikant, R. (2017). Enhancing the Reliability of Out-Of-Distribution Image Detection in Neural Networks. arXiv.
8. An interpretable deep learning framework for intrusion detection in industrial Internet of Things10.1016/j.iot.2025.101681 ↗
9. A health assessment framework of lithium-ion batteries for cyber defense10.1016/j.asoc.2020.107067 ↗
10. Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., and Weinberger, K.Q. (2017, January 6–11). On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia.
11. A tutorial on conformal prediction
12. Nearest neighbor pattern classification10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964 ↗
13. Wu, F., Souza, A., Zhang, T., Fifty, C., Yu, T., and Weinberger, K. (2019, January 9–15). Simplifying Graph Convolutional Networks. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, CA, USA.
14. Learning with local and global consistency
15. Zhu, X., Ghahramani, Z., and Lafferty, J. (2003, January 21–24). Semi-Supervised Learning Using Gaussian Fields and Harmonic Functions. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-03), Washington, DC, USA.
16. 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 International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy, Funchal, Portugal.10.5220/0006639801080116 ↗
17. A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2978386 ↗
18. Hastie, T. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
19. Tavallaee, M., Bagheri, E., Lu, W., and Ghorbani, A. (2009, January 8–10). A Detailed Analysis of the KDD CUP 99 Data Set. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defence Applications, Ottawa, ON, Canada.10.1109/CISDA.2009.5356528 ↗
20. Ruff, L., Vandermeulen, R., Goernitz, N., Deecke, L., Siddiqui, S.A., Binder, A., Müller, E., and Kloft, M. (2018, January 10–15). Deep One-Class Classification. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, Stockholm, Sweden.
21. Anomaly detection: A Survey10.1145/1541880.1541882 ↗
22. Liu, F.T., Ting, K.M., and Zhou, Z.-H. (2008, January 15–19). Isolation Forest. Proceedings of the 2008 8th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Pisa, Italy.10.1109/ICDM.2008.17 ↗
23. Kipf, T.N. (2016). Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. arXiv.
24. Inductive representation learning on large graphs
25. Veličković, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Liò, P., and Bengio, Y. (2017). Graph Attention Networks. arXiv.
26. Xu, K., Hu, W., Leskovec, J., and Jegelka, S. (2018). How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?. arXiv.
27. Rong, Y., Huang, W., Xu, T., and Huang, J. (2019). Dropedge: Towards Deep Graph Convolutional Networks on Node Classification. arXiv.