Downloads provided by UsageCounts
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) are valuable tools for the proper identification and the timely response to potential security threats in a network, using traffic analysis and anomalous activities detection. Traditional IDS rely on rule-based or signature-based methods to detect known cyber attacks, but these methods often fail to detect novel ones. There has been a growing interest recently, in using Machine Learning (ML) algorithms to enhance the detection capabilities of IDS. As a downturn, the datasets used by ML algorithms for IDS applications refers to network logs which may contain sensitive information, resulting in privacy threats. To address this issue, Differential Privacy (DP) can be used to preserve the privacy of network logs, while still allowing the ML algorithm to extract useful information from the data. In this work we test the performance of four popular ML classifiers (Gaussian Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machines, Random Forest Classifier) in the CIC-IDS2017 dataset when a DP mechanism is added to each algorithm in comparison with the classical non-DP setting.
Machine Learning, Differential Privacy, Intrusion Detection System
Machine Learning, Differential Privacy, Intrusion Detection System
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 42 | |
| downloads | 47 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts