Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Intrusion Detection using Genetic Programming Presented by Chris Chambers Overview General idea: Body very good at distinguishing between self/not-self Has a memory for old intrusions If only IDS’s were that good! “It is to be noted that the mechanisms of the immune system are remarkably complex and poorly understood, even by immunologists.” –Dasgupta, Attoh-Okine Overview Fuzzy Data Mining and GA Applied to Intrusion Detection New Paradigms for ID Using GP (CHIMERA) Fuzzy Data Mining and GA Applied to Intrusion Detection S. Bridges, R. Vaughn, Mississippi State University, NISSC 2000 Premise: Body is good at detecting intrusions by pattern matching Can use this for securing systems Given a learning trace, evolve a program over a series of generations to detect intrusions Novel idea: Using training data and rules develops rules overspecific to training data Fuzzy rules are less specific What is fuzziness? Technique Fuzzy Data Mining Fuzzy Association Rules computed for baseline Example rule: {time = 11-12pm} => {load = LOW} Compared with rules for abnormals “Distance” computed Fuzzy Frequency Episodes (grouping data into repetitive sequences) Same trick, “distance” computed between series Technique (con’t) Misuse Detection expert system also used Hardwired rules, like, >3 login attempts == bad Genetic Algorithms: used to tune fuzzy sets Swiped from http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/2000/proceedings/papers/005slide.pdf Results Anomaly % == #anomalies detected / #actual anomalies More Results Conclusions GA only used to optimize results Fuzzy data mining works okay Fuzzy results New Paradigms for Intrusion Detection Using Genetic Programming Bob Adolf, 2003 (from Northwestern?) Premise: Body is good at detecting intrusions by pattern matching Can use this for securing systems Given a learning trace, evolve a program over a series of generations to detect intrusions Design of CHIMERA Linear phenome “string of 1’s and 0’s” vs. “tree program” Brood Recombination “lots of kids per parent” Small mutations more like life Code Locality number Supposed to help crossover Evaluation of CHIMERA Cool trace: 3 days long, 20 flagged intrusions 100 generations, 10k members / generation, top 100 kept as survivors Results and Conclusion Results and Conclusion Total failure of CHIMERA Best members not as good as random strings Code locality numbers didn’t work (no coherent code blocks) Conclusion: GP requires way more resources and generations than normal programs IDS is hard for GP. 20 intrusions in a trace of tens of millions of events is “magnificently sparse” Final Conclusion Using GP to Improve IDS: Still formative Poorly understood