Po-Jen Chuang This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and Tzu-Chao Hung

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan 25137, R.O.C.


 

Received: July 22, 2019
Accepted: November 23, 2019
Download Citation: ||https://doi.org/10.6180/jase.202003_23(1).0017  

ABSTRACT


This paper introduces a new attack blocking mechanism to defend against malicious unknown attacks in the Internet of Things (IoT) environments. The new mechanism starts by installing a honeypot in each Software Defined Network OpenFlow switch to attract and collect suspicious traffic. Upon detecting suspicious traffic, it will first store the traffic in the honeypot first, instead of performing instant anomaly detection, to preserve the overall network speed and packets. The mechanism then sends the collected attack traffic to the controller, to extract more appropriate features by the machine learning practice and to ensure more accurate anomaly identification. After identifying the attack type, it will add a proper defense rule in the entry table – a new entry – to block similar future attacks. Experimental evaluation proves that the new mechanism is more advantageous than the existing flow-based IDS mechanism. Major advantages include being able to detect and prevent unknown attacks without blocking regular network traffic, achieve better capture rates than the Intrusion Detection System (IDS) upon traffic-high or short packet attacks, and avoid potential packet loss.


Keywords: Internet of Things (IoT), Software Defined Network (SDN), Intrusion Detection System (IDS), flow table, honeypot, machine learning, anomaly detection, Distributed Denial of Services (DDoS).



REFERENCES


  1. [1]Sperotto, , Schaffrath, G., Sadre, R., Morariu, C., Pras, A., and Stiller, B., “An Overview of IP Flow-Based Intrusion Detection,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 12, pp. 343-356, 3rd Quarter 2010. Doi:10.1109/SURV.2010.032210.00054
  2. [2]Anirudh, M., Thileeban, S. A., and Nallathambi, D. J., “Use of Honeypots for Mitigating DoS Attacks Targeted on IoT Networks,” 2017 Int’l Conf. on Computer, Communication and Signal Processing, Jan. 2017. Doi:10.1109/ICCCSP.2017.7944057
  3. [3]Bhunia, S. S. and Gurusamy, M., “Dynamic Attack Detection and Mitigation in IoT Using SDN,” 2017 Int’l Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conf., Nov. 2017. Doi:10.1109/ATNAC.2017.8215418
  4. [4]Kim, E. J., Jun, J. A., and Kim, N.-S., “The Method of Controlling Traffic Paths in IoT-based Software Defined Network,” IEEE 7th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conf., Oct. 2016. Doi:10.1109/UEMCON.2016.7777824
  5. [5]“Argus”[Online], Available:https://qosient.com/argus/.
  6. [6]“Honeyd” [Online]. Available: http://www.honeyd.org/.
  7. [7]Meena, G. and Choudhary R. R., “A Review Paper on IDS Classification Using KDD 99 and NSL KDD Dataset in WEKA,” 2017 Int’l Conf. on Computer, Communications and Electronics, July 2017, pp.553-558. Doi : 10.1109/COMPTELIX.2017.8004032
  8. [8]Mhetre, V. and Nagar, M., “Classification Based Data Mining Algorithms to Predict Slow, Average and Fast Learners in Educational System Using WEKA,” 2017 Int’l Conf. on Computing Methodologies and Communication, July 2017, pp.475-479. Doi:10.1109/ICCMC.2017.8282735
  9. [9]Abubakar, A. and Pranggono, B., “Machine Learning Based Intrusion Detection System for Software Defined Networks,” Emerging Security Technologies, pp.138-143, Sept. 2017. Doi:1109/EST.2017.8090413
  10. [10]Boero, L., Marchese, M., and Zappatore, S., “Support Vector Machine Meets Software Defined Networking in IDS Domain,” 29th Int’l Teletraffic Congress, Sept. 2017, pp.25-30. Doi: 10.23919/ITC.2017.8065806
  11. [11]Dao, N. N., Park, J., Park, M., and Cho, S., “A Feasible Method to Combat against DDoS Attack in SDN Network,” 2015 Int’l Conf. on Information Networking, Jan. 2015, pp. 309-311. Doi: 10.1109/ICOIN.2015.7057902
  12. [12]Mousavi, S. M. and St-Hilaire, M., “Early Detection of DDoS Attacks against SDN Controllers,” 2015 Int’l Conf. in Computing Networking and Communications, Feb. 2015, pp. 77-81. Doi: 10.1109/ICCNC.2015.7069319
  13. [13]Buragohain, C. and Medhi, N., “FlowTrApp: An SDN Based Architecture for DDoS Attack Detection and Mitigation in Data Centers,” 3rd Int’l Conf. on Signal Processing and Integrated Networks, Feb. 2016, pp. 519-524. Doi:10.1109/SPIN.2016.7566750
  14. [14]Gkountis, C., Taha, M., Lloret, J., and Kambourakis, G., “Lightweight Algorithm for Protecting SDN Controller against DDoS Attacks,” 2017 Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference, Sept. 2017.Doi:10.1109/WMNC.2017.8248858
  15. [15]S. A., Khalid, J., Khayam, S. A., “Revisiting Traffic Anomaly Detection Using Software Defined Networking,” Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Vol. 6961, pp. 161-180, 2011. Doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23644-0_9
  16. [16]Jafarian, J. H., Al-Shaer, E., and Duan, Q., “Openflow Random Host Mutation: Transparent Moving Target Defense Using Software Defined Networking,” 1st Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networks, Aug. 2012, pp. 127-132.
  17. [17]Shin, S., Yegneswaran, V., Porras, P., and Gu, G., “AVANT-GUARD: Scalable and Vigilant Switch Flow Management in Software-Defined Networks,” 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security, Nov. 2013, pp. 413-424.
  18. [18]Deogirikar, J. and Vidhate, A., “Security Attacks in IoT: A Survey,” IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud, pp.32-37, Feb. 2017. Doi:10.1109/I-SMAC.2017.8058363
  19. [19]“Mininet”[Online],Available:http://mininet.org/walkthrough/.
  20. [20]“Ryu.” [Online]. Available: http://osrg.github.io/ryu/.
  21. [21]Kolias, C., Kambourakis, G., Stavrou, A., and Voas, J., “DDoS in the IoT: Mirai and Other Botnets,” IEEE Computer, Vol. 50, No. 7, pp. 80-84, July 2017. Doi:10.1109/MC.2017.201
  22. [22]De Donno, M., Dragoni, N,, Giaretta, A., and Spognardi, A., “Analysis of DDoS-capable IoT Malwares,” 2017 Federated Conf. on Computer Science and Information Systems, Sept. 2017, pp. 807-816. Doi:10.15439/2017F288
  23. [23]Sforzin, A., Mármol, F. G., Conti, M., and Bohli, J.-M., “RPiDS: Raspberry Pi IDS — A Fruitful Intrusion Detection System for IoT,” 2016 Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced and Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing and Communications, Cloud and Big Data Computing, Internet of People, and Smart World Congress, July 2016, pp.440-448. Doi:10.1109/UIC-ATC-ScalCom-CBDCom-IoP-SmartWorld.2016.0080
  24. [24]Bhosale, D. A., and Mane, V. M., “Comparative Study and Analysis of Network Intrusion Detection Tools,” 2015 Int’l Conf. on Applied and Theoretical Computing and Communication Technology, Oct. 2015, pp. 312-315. Doi:10.1109/ICATCCT.2015.7456901
  25. [25]Miettinen, M., Marchal, S., Hafeez, I., Asokan, N., Sadeghi, A.-R., and Tarkoma, S., “IoT Sentinel: Automated Device-Type Identification for Security Enforcement in IoT,” 37th IEEE Int’l Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, Jun. 2017. Doi:10.1109/ICDCS.2017.283
  26. [26]Aggarwal, P. and Sharma, S. K., “An Empirical Comparison of Classifiers to Analyze Intrusion Detection,” Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies, pp. 446-450, Feb. 2015. Doi:10.1109/ACCT.2015.59
  27. [27]Joshi, A., Wazid, M., and Goudar, R. H., “An Efficient Cryptographic Scheme for Text Message Protection Against Brute Force and Cryptanalytic Attacks,” Procedia Computer Science, 48, pp. 360-366, 2015. Doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.04.194
  28. [28]Kaynar, K., “A Taxonomy for Attack Graph Generation and Usage in Network Security,” Journal of Information Security and Applications, Vol. 29, pp. 27-56, 2016. Doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2016.02.001


    
 

0.7
2020CiteScore
 
 
33rd percentile
Powered by  Scopus

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Enter your name and email below to receive latest published articles in Journal of Applied Science and Engineering.