Loading…
Detection of dos attacks using naive bayes method based on internet of things (iot)
Internet of Things (IoT) is a technology that is currently on a trend. Interconnecting networks on IoT are useful in the automation process, but it has vulnerabilities to network-based disruptions and attacks; such as Denial of Service (DoS). This study aimed at implementing the Naive Bayes algorith...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of physics. Conference series 2021-03, Vol.1810 (1), p.12013 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Internet of Things (IoT) is a technology that is currently on a trend. Interconnecting networks on IoT are useful in the automation process, but it has vulnerabilities to network-based disruptions and attacks; such as Denial of Service (DoS). This study aimed at implementing the Naive Bayes algorithm to predict attribute classes using training data-sets from NSLKDD with the KDD99 format and obtained testing-data from the logging process of DoS attacks on IoT-based devices. The advantage of using Naive Bayes is that this method only requires a small amount of training data to determine the estimated parameters needed in the classification process. The results of the conducted research could detect attacks on IoT devices by using the help of snort tools to capture traffic logs. The results from the log were then converted into KDD99 format and processed by the Naive Bayes method. This research uses a training dataset from NSLKDD with KDD99 format which is widely used in various studies and testing data obtained from the IDS log process on the Raspberry Pi 3. The attributes used are 9 attributes namely; service, flag, src_bytes, dst_bytes, srv_serror_rate, same_srv_rate, diff_srv_rate, dst_host_srv_diff_host_rate and dst_host_srv_serror_rate. The results of the research analysis showed an accuracy of 64.02%. These results were smaller than previous results, but some aspects were still different from the actual results because the testing data and training data were taken from two different data-sets, thereby they had different characteristics. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1742-6588 1742-6596 |
DOI: | 10.1088/1742-6596/1810/1/012013 |