skip to main content
research-article

Efficient IoT Traffic Inference: From Multi-view Classification to Progressive Monitoring

Published:16 December 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Machine learning-based techniques have proven to be effective in Internet-of-Things (IoT) network behavioral inference. Existing works developed data-driven models based on features from network packets and/or flows, but mainly in a static and ad-hoc manner, without adequately quantifying their gains versus costs. In this article, we develop a generic architecture that comprises two distinct inference modules in tandem, which begins with IoT network behavior classification followed by continuous monitoring. In contrast to prior relevant works, our generic architecture flexibly accounts for various traffic features, modeling algorithms, and inference strategies. We argue quantitative metrics are required to systematically compare and efficiently select various traffic features for IoT traffic inference.

This article1 makes three contributions: (1) For IoT behavior classification, we identify four metrics, namely, cost, accuracy, availability, and frequency, that allow us to characterize and quantify the efficacy of seven sets of packet-based and flow-based traffic features, each resulting in a specialized model. By experimenting with traffic traces of 25 IoT devices collected from our testbed, we demonstrate that specialized-view models can be superior to a single combined-view model trained on a plurality of features by accuracy and cost. We also develop an optimization problem that selects the best set of specialized models for a multi-view classification. (2) For monitoring the expected IoT behaviors, we develop a progressive system consisting of one-class clustering models (per IoT class) at three levels of granularity. We develop an outlier detection technique on top of the convex hull algorithm to form custom-shape boundaries for the one-class models. We show how progression helps with computing costs and the explainability of detecting anomalies. (3) We evaluate the efficacy of our optimally selected classifiers versus the superset of specialized classifiers by applying them to our IoT traffic traces. We demonstrate how the optimal set can reduce the processing cost by a factor of six with insignificant impacts on the classification accuracy. Also, we apply our monitoring models to a public IoT dataset of benign and attack traces and show they yield an average true-positive rate of 94% and a false-positive rate of 5%. Finally, we publicly release our data (training and testing instances of classification and monitoring tasks) and code for convex hull-based one-class models.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Hamza A.. 2019. IoT Benign and Attack Traces. Retrieved from https://iotanalytics.unsw.edu.au/attack-data.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Abu-Mostafa Yaser et al. 2012. Learning from Data. AMLBook.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Ahmed J. et al. 2020. Monitoring enterprise DNS queries for detecting data exfiltration from internal hosts. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manage. 17, 1 (2020), 265279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Alrawi Omar, Lever Chaz, Antonakakis Manos, and Monrose Fabian. 2019. SoK: Security evaluation of home-based IoT deployments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P’19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Anand J., Sivanathan A., Hamza A., and Gharakheili H. Habibi. 2021. PARVP: Passively assessing risk of vulnerable passwords for HTTP authentication in networked cameras. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on DAI-SNAC. 1016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Bezawada B. et al. 2018. Behavioral fingerprinting of IoT devices. In Proceedings of the ACM ASHES.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Bezawada B., Bachani M., Peterson J., Shirazi H., Ray I., and Ray I.. 2018. Behavioral fingerprinting of IoT devices. In Proceedings of the ASHES. Toronto, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Bitdefender. 2017. Infected Vending Machines, Lamps, other IoT Devices Shut Down University Network. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3NE6dPuGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Bremler-Barr A. et al. 2020. IoT or NoT: Identifying IoT devices in a short time scale. In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP NOMS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Bynum M. et al. 2021. Pyomo–Optimization Modeling in Python (3rd ed.). Vol. 67. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Cateni Silvia et al. 2014. A method for resampling imbalanced datasets in binary classification tasks for real-world problems. Neurocomputing 135 (2014), 3241. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Cisco. 2012. Introduction to Cisco IOS NetFlow—A Technical Overview. Retrieved from https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/ios-nx-os-software/ios-netflow/prod_white_paper0900aecd80406232.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Edge Cyber. 2020. Cyberthreat Defense Report. Retrieved from https://cyber-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CyberEdge-2020-CDR-Report-v1.0.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Diamond S. et al. 2016. CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 83 (2016), 15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Doshi R. et al. 2018. Machine learning DDoS detection for consumer Internet of Things devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE S&P Workshops.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Tlamelo E. et al. 2021. A survey on missing data in machine learning. J. Big Data 8 (2021), 137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Eddy Wesley. 2022. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). Retrieved from https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Feng X., Li Q., Wang H., and Sun L.. 2018. Acquisitional rule-based engine for discovering Internet-of-Things devices. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Forescout. 2016. Network Visibility Survey. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/30LBGafGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Garcia S., Parmisano A., and Erquiaga. M. J.2023. IoT-23: A Labeled Dataset with Malicious and Benign IoT Network Traffic. Retrieved from https://zenodo.org/record/4743746. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Guo H. et al. 2018. IP-based IoT device detection. In Proceedings of the ACM IoT S&P.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Guo Hang et al. 2020. IoTSTEED: Bot-side Defense to IoT-based DDoS Attacks (Extended). Technical Report ISI-TR-738. USC/Information Sciences Institute. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3ec9eGSGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. [23] Guo H. and Heidemann J.. 2020. IoTSTEED: Bot-side Defense to IoT-based DDoS Attacks (Extended). Technical Report ISI-TR-738. USC/Information Sciences Institute. Retrieved from https://www.isi.edu/%7ejohnh/PAPERS/Guo20b.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Gharakheili H. Habibi, Lyu M., Wang Y., Kumar H., and Sivaraman V.. 2019. iTeleScope: Softwarized network middle-box for real-time video telemetry and classification. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manage. 16, 3 (2019), 10711085. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Hamza A. et al. 2019. Detecting volumetric attacks on IoT devices via SDN-based monitoring of MUD activity. In Proceedings of the ACM SOSR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Hamza A. et al. 2020. Verifying and monitoring IoTs network behavior using MUD profiles. IEEE Trans. Depend. Secure Comput. 19, 1 (May2020), 118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Hamza A. et al. 2022. Verifying and monitoring IoTs network behavior using MUD profiles. IEEE TDSC 19, 1 (2022), 118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Hamza Ayyoob, Gharakheili Hassan Habibi, and Sivaraman Vijay. 2018. Combining MUD policies with SDN for IoT intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the ACM IoT S&P.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Hasan M. et al. 2019. Attack and anomaly detection in IoT sensors in IoT sites using machine learning approaches. Internet Things J. 7 (2019), 114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Hasan M., Islam M. M., Zarif M. I. I., and Hashem M. M. A.. 2019. Attack and anomaly detection in IoT sensors in IoT sites using machine learning approaches. Internet Things J. 7 (2019), 100059.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Hasan Md Kamrul et al. 2021. Missing value imputation affects the performance of machine learning: A review and analysis of the literature (2010–2021). Info. Med. Unlock. 27 (2021), 100799.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Holland J., Teixeira R., Schmitt P., Borgolte K., Rexford J., Feamster N., and Mayer J.. 2020. Classifying Network Vendors at Internet Scale. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13086. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Huang D. Yuxing, Apthorpe N., Li F., Acar G., and Feamster N.. 2020. IoT inspector: Crowdsourcing labeled network traffic from smart home devices at scale. ACM IMWUT 4, 2 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] IETF. 2013. Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information. Retrieved from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7011Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] IETF. 2019. Manufacturer Usage Description Specification. Retrieved from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8520Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Jmila Houda, Blanc Gregory, Shahid Mustafizur R., and Lazrag Marwan. 2022. A survey of smart home IoT device classification using machine learning-based network traffic analysis. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 9711797141. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Kumar D. et al. 2019. All things considered: An analysis of IoT devices on home networks. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Loi F. et al. 2017. Systematically evaluating security and privacy for consumer IoT devices. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on IoT S&P. 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Lyon G.. 1997. Retrieved from Nmap. https://nmap.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] Lyu Mi. et al. 2017. Quantifying the reflective DDoS attack capability of household IoT devices. In Proceedings of the ACM WiSec. 4651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Lyu M., Sherratt D., Sivanathan A., Gharakheili H. Habibi, Radford A., and Sivaraman V.. 2017. Quantifying the reflective DDoS attack capability of household IoT devices. In Proceedings of the ACM WiSec.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Marchal S. et al. 2019. AuDI: Toward autonomous IoT device-type identification using periodic communication. IEEE JSAC 37, 6 (June2019), 14021412.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Mazhar M. et al. 2020. Characterizing smart home IoT traffic in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM IoTDI.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Meidan Y. et al. 2017. ProfilIoT: A machine learning approach for IoT device identification based on network traffic analysis. In Proceedings of the SAC.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] Meidan Y. et al. 2018. N-BaIoT–network-based detection of IoT botnet attacks using deep autoencoders. IEEE Pervas. Comput. 17, 3 (2018), 1222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [46] Meidan Y. et al. 2020. A novel approach for detecting vulnerable IoT devices connected behind a home NAT. Comput. Secur. 97 (Oct.2020), 123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Miettinen M. et al. 2017. IoT SENTINEL: Automated device-type identification for security enforcement in IoT. In Proceedings of the IEEE ICDCS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Mills D.. 1992. Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation and Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1305Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [49] MITRE. 2020. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. Retrieved from https://cve.mitre.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Msadek N. et al. 2019. IoT device fingerprinting: Machine learning based encrypted traffic analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE WCNC.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Nguyen T. D. et al. 2019. DÏoT: A federated self-learning anomaly detection system for IoT. In Proceedings of the IEEE ICDCS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. [52] Nguyen T. D. et al. 2019. DÏoT: A federated self-learning anomaly detection system for IoT. In Proceedings of the IEEE ICDCS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. [53] Paloato. 2020. Unit 42 IoT Threat Report. Retrieved from https://start.paloaltonetworks.com/unit-42-iot-threat-reportGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. [54] Pashamokhtari A. et al. 2020. Progressive monitoring of IoT networks using SDN and cost-effective traffic signatures. In Proceedings of the ETSecIoT.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. [55] Pashamokhtari A. et al. 2021. Inferring connected IoT devices from IPFIX records in residential ISP networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE LCN.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Pashamokhtari A. et al. 2022. IoT Traffic Instances. Retrieved from https://iotanalytics.unsw.edu.au/smartinfer.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. [57] Pashamokhtari A. et al. 2022. PicP-MUD: Profiling information content of payloads in MUD flows for IoT devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE WoWMoM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. [58] Red-Button. 2016. Dyn (DynDNS) DDoS Attack. Retrieved from https://www.red-button.net/blog/dyn-dyndns-ddos-attackGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. [59] Reis D. et al. 2018. One-class quantification. In Proceedings of the ECML PKDD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Rockafellar R. T.. 1997. Convex Analysis. Princeton Mathematical Series.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Safi M. et al. 2022. A survey on IoT profiling, fingerprinting, and identification. ACM TIOT 3, 4, Article 26 (Sep.2022), 39 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. [62] Saidi S. J. et al. 2020. A haystack full of needles: Scalable detection of IoT devices in the wild. In Proceedings of the ACM IMC.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. [63] Salesforce. 2019. TLS Fingerprinting with JA3 and JA3S. Retrieved from https://engineering.salesforce.com/tls-fingerprinting-with-ja3-and-ja3s-247362855967Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. [64] SciPy. 2021. SciPy Convex Hull. Retrieved from https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.spatial.ConvexHull.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. [65] Sharma R. A. et al. 2022. Lumos: Identifying and localizing diverse hidden IoT devices in an unfamiliar environment. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. [66] Sivanathan A. et al. 2018. Can we classify an IoT device using TCP port scan?. In Proceedings of the IEEE ICIAfS.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. [67] Sivanathan A. et al. 2020. Detecting behavioral change of IoT devices using clustering-based network traffic modeling. IEEE Internet Things J. 7, 8 (2020), 72957309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. [68] Sivanathan A. et al. 2020. Managing IoT cyber-security using programmable telemetry and machine learning. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manage. 17, 1 (2020), 6074.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. [69] Sivanathan A., Gharakheili H. Habibi, Loi F., Radford A., Wijenayake C., Vishwanath A., and Sivaraman V.. 2019. Classifying IoT devices in smart environments using network traffic characteristics. IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. 18, 8 (2019), 17451759.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. [70] Sivanathan A., Loi F., Gharakheili H. Habibi, and Sivaraman V.. 2017. Experimental evaluation of cybersecurity threats to the smart-home. In Proceedings of the IEEE ANTS. 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. [71] Sivaraman V., Chan D., Earl D., and Boreli R.. 2016. Smart-phones attacking smart-homes. In Proceedings of the ACM WiSec. 195200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. [72] Sivaraman V., Gharakheili H. Habibi, Fernandes C., Clark N., and Karliychuk T.. 2018. Smart IoT devices in the home: Security and privacy implications. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 37, 2 (2018), 7179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. [73] Sommer R. and Paxson V.. 2010. Outside the closed world: On using machine learning for network intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE S&P. 305316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. [74] Sullivan H., Sivanathan A., Hamza A., and Gharakheili H. Habibi. 2023. Programmable active scans controlled by passive traffic inference for IoT asset characterization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP NOMS Workshop on Manage-IoT.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. [75] Thangavelu V., Divakaran D. M., Sairam R., Bhunia S. S., and Gurusamy M.. 2019. DEFT: A distributed IoT fingerprinting technique. IEEE Internet Things J. 6, 1 (2019), 940952. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. [76] Trimananda R., Varmarken J., Markopoulou A., and Demsky B.. 2019. PingPong: Packet-level signatures for smart home device events. In Proceedings of the NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. [77] Wang Y. et al. 2021. Analyzing the impact of missing values and selection bias on fairness. Int. J. Data Sci. Anal. 12, 2 (2021), 101119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. [78] Yang K. et al. 2019. Towards automatic fingerprinting of IoT devices in the cyberspace. Comput. Netw. 148 (2019), 318327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. [79] Yang K., Li Q., and Sun L.. 2019. Towards automatic fingerprinting of IoT devices in the cyberspace. Comput. Netw. 148 (2019), 318327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. [80] Zhao J. et al. 2017. Multi-view learning overview: Recent progress and new challenges. Info. Fusion 38 (2017), 4354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Efficient IoT Traffic Inference: From Multi-view Classification to Progressive Monitoring

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Internet of Things
        ACM Transactions on Internet of Things  Volume 5, Issue 1
        February 2024
        181 pages
        EISSN:2577-6207
        DOI:10.1145/3613526
        • Editor:
        • Gian Pietro Picco
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        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: 16 December 2023
        • Online AM: 24 September 2023
        • Accepted: 7 September 2023
        • Revised: 17 August 2023
        • Received: 14 December 2022
        Published in tiot Volume 5, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)246
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text