skip to main content
10.1145/3097983.3098163acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Machine Learning for Encrypted Malware Traffic Classification: Accounting for Noisy Labels and Non-Stationarity

Published:13 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The application of machine learning for the detection of malicious network traffic has been well researched over the past several decades; it is particularly appealing when the traffic is encrypted because traditional pattern-matching approaches cannot be used. Unfortunately, the promise of machine learning has been slow to materialize in the network security domain. In this paper, we highlight two primary reasons why this is the case: inaccurate ground truth and a highly non-stationary data distribution. To demonstrate and understand the effect that these pitfalls have on popular machine learning algorithms, we design and carry out experiments that show how six common algorithms perform when confronted with real network data. With our experimental results, we identify the situations in which certain classes of algorithms underperform on the task of encrypted malware traffic classification. We offer concrete recommendations for practitioners given the real-world constraints outlined. From an algorithmic perspective, we find that the random forest ensemble method outperformed competing methods. More importantly, feature engineering was decisive; we found that iterating on the initial feature set, and including features suggested by domain experts, had a much greater impact on the performance of the classification system. For example, linear regression using the more expressive feature set easily outperformed the random forest method using a standard network traffic representation on all criteria considered. Our analysis is based on millions of TLS encrypted sessions collected over 12 months from a commercial malware sandbox and two geographically distinct, large enterprise networks.

References

  1. Blake Anderson and David McGrew 2016. Identifying Encrypted Malware Traffic with Contextual Flow Data ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AISec). 35--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake Anderson, Subharthi Paul, and David McGrew. 2016. Deciphering Malware's Use of TLS (without Decryption) ArXiv e-prints.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mike Belshe, Roberto Peon, and Martin Thomson. 2015. Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2). RFC 7540 (Proposed Standard). (2015). showURL%http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7540.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Battista Biggio, Blaine Nelson, and Pavel Laskov. 2011. Support Vector Machines Under Adversarial Label Noise Asian Conference on Machine Learning. 97--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Battista Biggio, Blaine Nelson, and Pavel Laskov. 2012. Poisoning Attacks against Support Vector Machines International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). 1807--1814.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Leyla Bilge, Davide Balzarotti, William Robertson, Engin Kirda, and Christopher Kruegel. 2012. Disclosure: Detecting Botnet Command and Control Servers through Large-Scale NetFlow Analysis. In ACM Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC). 129--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Christopher Bishop. 2006. Pattern Recognition. Machine Learning Vol. 128 (2006), 1--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Simon Blake-Wilson, Nelson Bolyard, Vipul Gupta, Chris Hawk, and Bodo Moeller 2006. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). RFC 4492 (Informational). (2006). showURL%http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4492.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning, Vol. 45, 1 (2001), 5--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Leo Breiman, Jerome Friedman, Charles J Stone, and Richard A Olshen 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. CRC press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J Michael Butler. 2013. Finding Hidden Threats by Decrypting SSL. SANS Institute (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Franccois Chollet. 2017. Keras. (2017). showURL%https://github.com/fchollet/kerasshownoteAccessed: 2017-04--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cisco Talos. 2017. IP Blacklist Feed. (2017). showURL%http://www.talosintel.com/feeds/ip-filter.blfshownoteAccessed: 2017-04--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Benoit Claise. 2004. Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 9. RFC 3954 (Informational). (2004). showURL%http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3954.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Benoit Claise, Brian Trammell, and Paul Aitken. 2013. Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information. RFC 7011 (Proposed Standard). (2013). showURL%http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7011.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik 1995. Support-Vector Networks. Machine Learning, Vol. 20, 3 (1995), 273--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nilesh Dalvi, Pedro Domingos, Sumit Sanghai, Deepak Verma, and others 2004. Adversarial Classification. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD). 99--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Tim Dierks and Eric Rescorla 2008. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2. RFC 5246 (Proposed Standard). (2008). showURL%http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5246.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Pedro Domingos. 2012. A Few Useful Things to Know about Machine Learning. Communications of the ACM Vol. 55, 10 (2012), 78--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Floriana Esposito, Donato Malerba, Giovanni Semeraro, and J Kay 1997. A Comparative Analysis of Methods for Pruning Decision Trees. Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 19, 5 (1997), 476--491. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rong-En Fan, Kai-Wei Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Xiang-Rui Wang, and Chih-Jen Lin 2008. LIBLINEAR: A Library for Large Linear Classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research Vol. 9, Aug (2008), 1871--1874.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. 2001. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Rob Tibshirani. 2010. Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent. Journal of Statistical Software Vol. 33, 1 (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Guofei Gu, Roberto Perdisci, Junjie Zhang, and Wenke Lee 2008. BotMiner: Clustering Analysis of Network Traffic for Protocol-and Structure-Independent Botnet Detection. USENIX Security Symposium. 139--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Matt Harrigan. 2016. Machine Learning is not the Answer to Better Network Security. (2016). showURL%https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/29/machine-learning-is-not-the-answer-to-better-network-security/shownoteAccessed: 2017-04--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Geoffrey E Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan R Salakhutdinov. 2012. Improving Neural Networks by Preventing Co-Adaptation of Feature Detectors ArXiv e-prints.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. Deep Learning. Nature, Vol. 521, 7553 (2015), 436--444. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Daniel Lowd and Christopher Meek 2005. Adversarial Learning. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (KDD). 641--647. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. David McGrew and Blake Anderson 2016. Enhanced Telemetry for Encrypted Threat Analytics IEEE ICNP Workshop on Machine Learning in Computer Networks (NetworkML). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. David McGrew, Blake Anderson, Bill Hudson, and Philip Perricone 2017. Joy. https://github.com/cisco/joy. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Andrew W Moore and Denis Zuev 2005. Internet Traffic Classification Using Bayesian Analysis Techniques. SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review Vol. 33 (2005), 50--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Vern Paxson. 1999. Bro: a System for Detecting Network Intruders in Real-Time. Computer Networks, Vol. 31, 23--24 (1999), 2435--2463.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Fabian Pedregosa, Ga:el Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Edouard Duchesnay 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research Vol. 12 (2011), 2825--2830.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Eric Rescorla. 2017. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3 (draft 20). Intended Status: Standards Track. (2017). showURL%https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13--20Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin Roesch. 1999. Snort - Lightweight Intrusion Detection for Networks USENIX Large Installation System Administration Conference (LISA). 229--238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Mahmood Sharif, Sruti Bhagavatula, Lujo Bauer, and Michael K Reiter 2016. Accessorize to a Crime: Real and Stealthy Attacks on State-of-the-Art Face Recognition. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). 1528--1540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Robin Sommer and Vern Paxson 2010. Outside the Closed World: On using Machine Learning for Network Intrusion Detection. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P). 305--316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Florian Tegeler, Xiaoming Fu, Giovanni Vigna, and Christopher Kruegel 2012. Botfinder: Finding Bots in Network Traffic without Deep Packet Inspection ACM International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (Co-NEXT). 349--360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Nigel Williams, Sebastian Zander, and Grenville Armitage. 2006. A Preliminary Performance Comparison of Five Machine Learning Algorithms for Practical IP Traffic Flow Classification. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review Vol. 36, 5 (2006), 5--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. David H Wolpert and William G Macready 1997. No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. Transactions on Evolutionary Computation Vol. 1, 1 (1997), 67--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Machine Learning for Encrypted Malware Traffic Classification: Accounting for Noisy Labels and Non-Stationarity

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          KDD '17: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
          August 2017
          2240 pages
          ISBN:9781450348874
          DOI:10.1145/3097983

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 13 August 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          KDD '17 Paper Acceptance Rate64of748submissions,9%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

          Upcoming Conference

          KDD '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader