# An Efficient Method for Online Detection of DRDoS Attacks on UDP-Based Services in SDN Using Machine Learning Algorithms

Authors: Mitra Akbari Kohnehshahri; Reza Mohammadi; Hatam Abdoli; Mohammad Nassiri
Journal: Mobile Information Systems
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

With advances in mobile devices and systems and the emergence of new ideas such as cloud computing and big data, as well as the tremendous growth in the number of network users, the need to modify the current network architectures has been very much in the foreground in recent years. One of the promising solutions to overcome these challenges is software-defined networking (SDN). SDN is a unique innovative architecture in which network control and traffic flows are independent of each other and planned directly. The SDN’s focused view of networks is more comprehensive than other methods, which is why SDN is more efficient in coping with malicious attacks including amplification attacks. The response to amplification of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks is larger than the request. In an amplification attack, the attacker fakes the victim’s address as the source address and the responses are forwarded to the victim instead of the attacker. This is why these attacks are more difficult to discover in traditional networks, while the focused method of SDN can contribute to the detection of such attacks. There are different methods for detecting these attacks, one of which is to use machine learning (ML) algorithms. In line with this, the present paper is aimed at the detection of distributed reflection denial of service (DRDoS) attacks using ML algorithms. Simulation was performed by the use of ML algorithms, and the findings suggest a significant improvement in the detection of DRDoS attacks in comparison with previous methods.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Growing innovation in network applications and reduction in the costs of network operators has resulted in the idea of software-defined networking (SDN). In this model, the network becomes more intelligent and controllable, which facilitates the innovation and management of the network. The main difference with conventional networks is the separation of the control plane from the network devices. Separating these two planes, a centralized control becomes possible, which offers a comprehensive view of the network. Such a view of SDN enables network administrators to control and manage a large number of network devices, network topology, security policies, and routing automatically and dynamically by means of high-level languages [1]. The advantages of separating data and control units in SDN are as follows.Centralized control allows for integrated management and control by a central controller. Central control is a logical concept, and the control unit can be implemented in a distributed manner [2, 3]. Network devices are managed and controlled in an integrated and centralized manner, which can increase the productivity of network resources [4].Dynamicity of the configuration helps to easily add new features to the network infrastructure without updating all network devices [2, 3].Due to the integrated network management in SDN, the network performance is optimized. By using information about the current status of the existing resources, we can utilize methods that make optimum use of network resources in order to improve network efficiency [5].Workload is balanced. The network controller can be set in a way that, based on the current status of the network, it makes the data unit forward the traffic in a balanced manner to prevent congestion on the network and make optimum use of the resources [2, 3].The required parameters are provided. The users of a network may need certain parameters of quality of service based on the traffic they produce. Thus, to reach an acceptable level of productivity among users, we can develop a program that performs this operation on the network [6].Error tolerance is increased. By monitoring the network equipment, the controller can detect errors and determine alternative routes if needed. Furthermore, by calculating and announcing alternative routes, the traffic can be instantly forwarded to these routes in the event of error occurrence [2, 3].Another advantage is that the complexity is decreased. As SDNs are designed at the level of software and do not depend on hardware manufacturers, innovative ideas can be easily implemented in the network [4]. With the increasing growth in networks, security has turned into a major challenge for organizations, governments, and important persons. One type of security threat is denial of service (DoS) attacks which are operated through a single source. The aim is to block the access of authorized users to a certain network resource or make a victim unavailable. Thus, the server can no longer respond to the authorized users. Performing successful DoS attacks on today’s powerful systems is not possible through a single system. Moreover, an attack from multiple sources is far more difficult to trace than an attack from a single system. In distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, the attacker floods the target with millions of requests per second, which renders the host incapable of offering services to the authorized users. The attackers usually exploit the existing vulnerabilities to attack the target. When the favorable conditions for the attack exist, the attacker can perform a large integrated attack on a target. Ordinary defense mechanisms can easily neutralize single-source attacks. One of the aims of the research in the field of detecting DDoS intrusions has been to devise a comprehensive defense mechanism against such attacks.DDoS attacks are one of the main security challenges which constitute the largest part of all security threats. Figure1 illustrates the general structure of a DDoS attack. A DDoS attack attempts to disrupt the network services for various purposes. It uses public services as reflectors in order to increase network traffic [7, 8]. As mentioned regarding distributed reflection denial of service (DRDoS) attacks, the attackers use amplification attacks to intensify the effects of the attack. Therefore, the notion of amplification factor (AF) was introduced to measure the effect of DRDoS attacks. AF is divided into two types: packet amplification factor (PAF) and bandwidth amplification factor (BAF) which are defined by equations (1) and (2), respectively.(1)BAF=Lenudp payloadreflector to victimLenudp payloadattacker to reflector,(2)PAF=Number of packet  reflector to victimNumber of packet attacker to reflector.Figure 1
A DDoS attack.BAF is the volume in bytes of the data sent from the amplifier to the victim divided by the volume into bytes of the data sent from the attacker to the amplifier. PAF is the number of packets sent from the amplifier to the attacker divided by the number of packets sent from the attacker to the amplifier. Based on the protocol used, amplification DDoS attacks can be classified as TCP-based or UDP-based attacks. The AF of some of these attacks is listed in Table1 [9].Table 1
The amplification factor for UDP-based protocol [10].
ProtocolBAFPAFScenarioDescriptionPort (s)SNMP v26.31.00GetBulk requestMonitoring network-attached devices161NTP556.93.84Request client statisticsTime synchronization123DNS54.62.08ANY lookup at authorDomain name resolution53NetBIOS3.81.00Name resolutionName service protocol of NetBIOS API137SSDP30.89.92SEARCH requestDiscovery of UPnP-enabled hosts1900CharGen358.81.00Character generation requestLegacy character generation protocol19QOTD140.31.00Quote requestLegacy “quote-of-the-day” protocol17BitTorrent3.81.58File searchBitTorrent’s Kademlia DHT impl.AnyKad16.31.00Peer list exchangeeMule’s Kademlia DHT impl.AnyQuake 363.91.01Server info exchangeGames using the Quake 3 engine27960Steam5.51.12Server info exchangeGames using the steam protocol27015ZAv236.01.02Peer list and cmd exchangeP2P-based rootkit164XYSality37.31.00URL list exchangeP2P-based malware dropperAnyGameover45.45.39Peer and proxy exchangeP2P-based banking TrojanAnyAs can be seen in Table1, there are several protocols that cause high values of BAF in UDP-based attacks. For this reason, UDP is the main protocol of DRDoS attacks. As shown in Figure 2, the response produced by these attacks has a greater size than the request. This type of attack fakes the source IP and makes it difficult to filter troublesome packets [7]. The attacker uses UDP-based protocols to disrupt the networks and servers related to network services. In this type of attack, a server which is used as a reflector produces a large amount of data in response to the requests. This server hides the attacker’s identity from the victim [10, 11].Figure 2
A DRDoS attack [10].These attacks can be detected using SDN technology which adopts a comprehensive, integrated method to networks.Machine learning (ML) techniques are widely used in intrusion detection systems. Thus, these techniques are effectively used in the detection of DDoS attacks in SDN. In general, ML techniques distinguish between normal and destructive traffic flows according to certain features of the traffic [12].ML methods use techniques for detecting anomalies in a network which may be based on models, statistical and mathematical computations, unsupervised ML, or supervised ML. In fact, any system designed for the detection of network anomalies does this task by collecting the traffic and extracting some kind of information from it. The ML method tries to make a distinction between normal and abnormal traffic patterns [13]. Characteristic of ML techniques is that data are easily available and progress can be seen quite early. They are also useful for solving problems in the functionality and management of the network. The ML techniques for solving fundamental problems in the network include traffic prediction, routing and classification, density control, resource and error management, and network security [14]. As a whole, ML can improve the network’s performance through experience. The aim of ML is to design computer systems that learn by experience and are able to adapt to the surrounding environment [15]. The basic procedures of all ML systems are similar. First, the algorithm is provided with training data. The algorithm is actually responsible for learning and looking for different patterns in the data. After finding the patterns, the algorithm devises a model that can be stored in the memory. Afterward, the system can use the models to predict the behavior [16]. As shown in Figure 3, ML algorithms can be classified as supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning.Figure 3
Typology of machine learning.To this end, the present paper is aimed at online detection of amplification DDoS attacks in an SDN using ML algorithms.The paper is organized as follows. In the first section, we shall explain some basic concepts including SDN, attacks, DRDoS attacks, and ML algorithms. The second section reviews the previous works regarding the attacks performed on SDN. Section3 introduces the proposed method for online detection of amplification DDoS attacks using ML algorithms. Finally, Section 4 describes the implementation of the proposed method and compares its model with the other methods. The final section makes some conclusions.


## 2. Related Works

The emergence of SDN has caused novel ideas in this field. After the introduction of SDN, researchers began to investigate the capabilities of these networks. Detection of attacks was one of the key topics that received much attention.As mentioned in Section1, DDoS attacks are among the major challenges and vulnerabilities that this young network architecture is facing. Amplification attacks are one of the most serious and frequent DDoS attacks. To obtain an in-depth knowledge of the problem, we reviewed the previously proposed method for defending against DDoS attacks, particularly amplification attacks. Previous works in this field have studied some types of attack through the lens of ML algorithms. We will compare them based on whether they were conducted in the context of traditional networks or SDN.Santos et al. [13] evaluated four different ML algorithms with the aim of examining the precision and speed of classification of attacks and normal traffic in the vulnerable part of SDNs including controller, flow table, and the bandwidth between switch and controller. The algorithms used in this study include support vector machine (SVM), neural network (NN), decision tree (DTree), and random forest (RF). The emulator used was Mininet, and the controller was POX. In these emulations, the RF algorithm was the most precise ML algorithm in terms of their focus on the vulnerable points of the SDN, followed with a small difference by the DTree algorithm. The shortest processing time belongs to the DTree algorithm. Rahman et al. [17] compared four ML algorithms, namely, J48, RF, SVM, and K-nearest neighbor (K-NN). J48 had the performance in terms of training time and testing time.The paper used hping3 tool in Python to produce normal traffic and simulate ICMP and TCP flood DDoS attacks. Chen et al. [18] studied the detection of amplification DDoS attacks using ML algorithms in SDN. This paper examined the precision of detection of the SVM algorithm in different time intervals.Gao et al. [9] conducted research into the detection of amplification DDoS attacks in traditional networks. This study focused on DNS protocols. It sought to detect amplification DDoS attacks using PAF and BAF values. Filho et al. [19] addressed the online detection of DoS and DDoS attacks. They evaluated different datasets and finally proposed CIC-DoS, CICIDS2017, and CSE–CIC–IDS2018 customized datasets. The datasets of different attacks were generated using several tools, i.e., hping3, GoldenEye, hulk, and slowhttptest. This study obtained different precision values with the ML algorithms including RF, DTree, logistic regression (LR), stochastic gradient descent (SGD), perceptron, and AdaBoost with different numbers of features.Another study by Nanda et al. [20] addressed four ML algorithms, namely, BayesNet, C4.5, NaiveBayes, and DTree. The average prediction precision for BayesNet was found to be 91.68. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the precision and speed of processing. Irom Meite et al. [21] sought to detect amplification DNS attacks in traditional networks using four ML algorithms including DTree, multilayer perceptron (MLP), Naïve Bayes, and SVM. The detection precision of the DTree algorithm was greater than the other algorithms.


## 3. The Proposed Method

As can be seen in Table2, the mentioned methods do not provide all the requirements for efficient online detection of amplification DDoS attacks in SDN. For this reason, we decided to incorporate all these items into our proposed method. The importance of amplification DDoS attacks was described above. Our methodology is aimed at online detection of amplification DNS attacks. For implementation, we prefer SDN due to their integrated perspective which consists of data plane and control plane. In the data unit, we assume a topology for generating online traffic. The network requires a controller which must be managed by the network on the data plane. On the control plane of an SDN, statistical information about the network links is collected by switches and transmitted to the controller.Table 2
A summary of the previous studies.
SourceOnlineOfflineSDN-basedDNS amplification[13]✗✓✓✗[17]✗✓✓✗[18]✗✓✓✓[9]✗✓✗✓[19]✓✗✗✗[20]✗✓✓✗[21]✗✓✗✓Proposed method✓✗✓✓In normal DNS traffic conditions, the volume of responses is more than the volume of requests, which is opposed to the attacking conditions where the volume of requests multiplies. Next, the appropriate ML algorithms are selected. The algorithms are trained based on the existing dataset, and then, the model is developed. Finally, online traffic is produced and the controller collects the information about the traffic in intervals of 20 seconds. The ML algorithms will make use of the developed model to distinguish malicious traffic from normal traffic.As mentioned earlier, the aim of this paper is to detect amplification DNS attacks with the help of the controller’s integrated perspective as well as ML algorithms which are modeled based on several attributes that have been extracted from the dataset according to their importance. Our proposed method makes use of five ML algorithms including DTree, RF, SVM, gradient boosting classifier (GBC), and AdaBoost. In this study, the proposed dataset for the detection of DDoS attacks was CICIDS2017 [22] for normal DNS traffic. For malicious traffic, amplification DNS attacks were produced using Scapy tool [23]. CIS-IDS2017 consists of several sets of different types of attack traffic and normal traffic. As can be seen in Figure 4, due to the existence of normal DNS traffic in this dataset, we only extracted the normal traffic from this dataset and combined it with the generated malicious traffic.Figure 4
Combination of normal and malicious DNS traffic.The majority of amplification DNS attacks can be detected through the volume and number of response packets. These two attributes were extracted using different algorithms. Figure5 shows how the proposed method works. First, the ML algorithms are trained in an offline manner using CIS-IDS-2017 as well as the generated malicious dataset. In the determined timespan, statistical information about the DNS response and request flows is collected. When the time ends, attacks can be detected via the trained ML algorithms and the statistical information about the flows. On detecting an attack, an alert is declared and the system returns to the information collection step.Figure 5
Flowchart of the proposed method.


## 4. Performance Evaluation

We implemented the control unit using Ryu controller [24], which is a tool written in Python and is well known among academic researchers. The data unit was simulated using Mininet [25].As shown in Figure6, the first step in designing the simulation scenario is to consider a system composed of 11 switches and 12 hosts. To investigate the performance of the proposed method in different conditions, we consider three different modes for the number of attackers and victims in the topology. With these different conditions, we can do more experiments and examine more results. In the first scenario, the topology consists of an attacker and one victim, in the second scenario the topology consists of two attackers and two victims, and in the last scenario the topology consists of three attackers and two victims. In all three scenarios, the number of DNS servers is three. The traffic generated in the topology includes amplification DNS attack, normal DNS traffic, and iperf traffic.Figure 6
Topology of the online attack traffic.Table3 provides a summary of the implementation conditions of the proposed method. In the first scenario, Host 1 is the attacker and Hosts 2, 3, and 11 are DNS servers. Host 4 is the victim.Table 3
Simulation settings.
EnvironmentSDNEmulatorMininetControllerRyuML algorithmsAdaBoost, DTree, RF, SVM, GBCNumber of attributes selected from the dataset12Number of switches in the topology11Traffic typeNormal DNS traffic, malicious DNS traffic, and iperf trafficIntervals of preparing reports on the network20 secondsType of attack detectionOnline (simultaneously with traffic generation)As aforementioned, on the control plane of an SDN, statistical information about the network links is collected by switches and transmitted to the controller. In the proposed method, this information includes source IP address, destination IP address, source port address, destination port address, the number of packets in a flow, and the volume of packets in a flow. As mentioned above, one of the most important criteria for the detection of amplification DDoS attacks is difference in the size and number of packets in request and response flows. To allow for a correct detection, therefore, we have separated the request and response flows of normal and malicious traffic.To create an amplification DDoS attack, Scapy is used for creating an amplification DNS attack.After creating the dataset, we reduce the number of attributes down to 12 by examining the existing attributes and evaluating their importance through the ML algorithms. The final attributes are listed in Table4.Table 4
Selected features in the proposed method. The average importance of each attribute in the proposed method as obtained by the learning algorithms is presented in Figure7.
NumberFeatures1Total requested packets2Total response packets3Total volume of requested packets4Total volume of response packets5Maximum volume of response packet6Minimum volume of response packet7Average volume of response packets8Standard deviation of the volume of response packets9Minimum packet volume10Maximum packet volume11Average packet volume12Standard deviation of the volume of packetsFigure 7
The importance of the selected features as obtained by the ML algorithms.As shown in Figure8, the results were evaluated using an ROC curve. This graph was used to specify which ML algorithms had provided a correct classification for the dataset of the proposed method. The horizontal axis of the curve represents false-positive rate (FPR), and the vertical axis shows true-positive rate (TPR). The algorithm with the largest area under the curve has the best classification capability.Figure 8
ROC curve of different algorithms.As can be seen in Figure8, in the proposed method with the conditions of the first scenario, the SVM and RF algorithms had a better performance than the other algorithms, while the decision tree algorithm was found to have the weakest classification capability. We shall now compare our results with the two papers discussed in the review of the literature section. The first paper is [18]. The implementation method of this paper was offline, and it was implemented in an SDN. It was implemented solely by a support vector algorithm, and its results are referred to as Chen in the graphs. The second study is [9], which was implemented offline in traditional networks and whose results are specified as Gao in the graphs. Both papers are aimed at the detection of amplification DDoS attacks. The first criterion for comparing the three methods is accuracy. Figure 9 compares the accuracy level of the three methods. The horizontal axis shows the algorithms, and the vertical axis shows the accuracy level ranging from 0 to 1. Accuracy can be calculated via equation (3). True positive (TP) denotes the traffic which is an attack and has been detected correctly; true negative (TN) denotes traffic which is normal and has been detected correctly; false positive (FP) denotes normal traffic which has been wrongly specified as malicious; false negative (FN) denotes malicious traffic which has been wrongly specified as normal.(3)Accuracy=TP+TNTP+TN+FP+FN.Figure 9
Accuracy for different ML algorithms (first scenario).As can be seen from the graph, the proposed method with the conditions of the first scenario has the highest value for the GBC and SVM algorithms. Overall, it is more accurate than Chen and Gao methods in all algorithms. The next graph compares recall rates. As in the accuracy graph, the horizontal axis represents the ML algorithms, and the vertical axis shows the recall rate. Recall rate can be calculated as follows:(4)Recall=TPTP+FN.As can be seen in Figure10, the recall rate of the proposed approach with the conditions of the first scenario and the Chen method is the highest for the GBC, RF, DTree, and SVM algorithms, whereas the Yuxuan method has the lowest recall rate for the GBC algorithm. The next criterion for comparison is precision. It refers to the quantitative ratio of the items correctly classified by the ML algorithms to the total number of classified items (whether correctly or incorrectly) by the algorithm. It is calculated as follows:(5)Precision=TPTP+FP.Figure 10
Recall for different ML algorithms (first scenario).As in the previous graphs, the horizontal axis represents the ML algorithms and the vertical axis shows precision. Figure11 compares the precision level of the three methods.Figure 11
Precision for different ML algorithms (first scenario).As can be seen in Figure11, the highest precision in the proposed method with the conditions of the first scenario belongs to the GBC and SVM algorithms and the highest precision in the Chen method belongs to the GBC and RF algorithm. The lowest precision belongs to the DTree algorithm in the Yuxuan method. The next comparison criterion is F-score. On this graph, the horizontal axis lists the ML algorithms and the vertical axis shows the obtained F-scores. Figure 12 compares the F-scores of the three methods, which can be calculated via equation (6). This equation combines equations (4) and (5).(6)F−score=2∗Precision∗RecallPrecision+Recall.Figure 12
F-score for different ML algorithms (first scenario).As shown in Figure12, all ML algorithms in the proposed method with the conditions of the first scenario have gained better F-scores than the other two methods. False-positive rate (FPR) is obtained by dividing the number of normal items that were detected as malicious by the total number of normal items that were detected as malicious and normal items that were detected correctly as normal. Equation (7) calculates the value of FPR.(7)FPR=FPFP+TN.As shown in Table5, the FPR of the proposed method with the conditions of the first scenario is less than that of the other methods. This value is smallest for the GBC and SVM algorithms in the proposed method. True-negative rate (TNR), which is also known as sensitivity, is obtained by dividing the number of normal items that were detected correctly by the total number of normal items that were detected correctly and the normal items that were detected as malicious. The following equation is used to calculate TNR as follows:(8)TNR=TNFP+TN.Table 5
FPR values.
AlgorithmProposed methodChenGaoGBC00.06250RF0.020.050DTree0.060.080.12SVM00.020.05AdaBoost0.080.060.02As it can be seen in Table6, the TNR of most of the ML algorithms in the proposed method with the conditions of the first scenario is greater than in the other methods. False-negative rate (FNR) refers to the ratio of the number of items that were wrongly detected as normal to the total number of items that were wrongly detected as normal and malicious items that were detected as normal. This value can be calculated by(9)FNR=FNFN+TP.Table 6
TNR values (first scenario).
AlgorithmProposed methodChenGaoGBC10.9371RF0.9770.9441DTree0.9370.9140.872SVM10.9790.942AdaBoost0.9160.9360.979As shown in Table7, all ML algorithms used in the proposed method with the conditions of the first scenario have the lowest FNR.Table 7
FNR values (first scenario).
AlgorithmProposed methodChenGaoGBC000.03RF000.16DTree000.06SVM000AdaBoost00.060.16We also tested the criteria obtained in the first scenario for the second and third scenarios. The results of the second and the third scenarios were close to the first scenario test. The average case results of all three scenarios are displayed in the form of graphs and tables.According to the graphs, the averages obtained in Figures13–16 are close to the values of the first scenario. In the arrangements made, the values obtained for the first scenario, the second scenario, and the third scenario are approximately equal. According to the mean graphs, it can be concluded that the proposed method has worked better in all three scenarios comparing to the Chen and Gao methods. We also obtained the average of FPR, TPR, and TNR criteria in all three scenarios which can be seen in Tables 8–10.Figure 13
Average accuracy of three scenarios.Figure 14
Average recall of three scenarios.Figure 15
Average F-score of three scenarios.Figure 16
Average F-score of three scenarios.Table 8
Average of FPR values.
AlgorithmProposed methodChenGaoGBC0.0080.0550.007RF0.0530.0440.02DTree0.0470.0570.104SVM0.0060.0280.044AdaBoost0.0630.0570.014Table 9
Average of TNR values.
AlgorithmProposed methodChenGaoGBC0.9910.9440.992RF0.9630.9530.98DTree0.9510.9380.12SVM0.9930.9710.952AdaBoost0.9500.9400.984Table 10
Average of FNR values.
AlgorithmProposed methodChenGaoGBC00.0150.17RF00.0280.125DTree0.0180.0170.076SVM00.0170.04AdaBoost00.040.014Considering the values of Tables8–10, it can be concluded that the proposed method outperforms the Chen and Gao methods.The speed of processing refers to the classification time required by each ML algorithm to distinguish malicious attacks from normal traffic. On this graph, the horizontal axis shows the ML algorithms and the vertical axis shows the processing time required by each of the algorithms. In fact, the graph in Figure13 shows the average processing time required for the detection of attacks.As can be seen in Figure17, the DTree algorithm has a higher processing speed than the other algorithms. AdaBoost was found to be the slowest algorithm in distinguishing malicious attacks from normal traffic.Figure 17
Speed of detection for different ML algorithms.


## 5. Conclusion

In this paper, a new ML method has proposed to detect DRDOS attacks in SDN-based networks. The proposed method is implemented on the controller and leverages the capabilities of SDN architecture to gather useful information about DNS traffic flows. Then, it makes use of ML algorithms to detect the presence of DNS amplification attack. To train the ML algorithms, we have selected the most important features from CIC-IDS-2017 dataset. The performance of the proposed method compared to other state-of-the-art techniques has been conducted in a comprehensive manner. The simulation results confirm that using decision tree algorithm as an ML model in the proposed method achieves the shorter attack detection time, whereas SVM and GBC algorithms outperform other algorithms in terms of accuracy. Furthermore, the results showed that our proposed method is applicable and can be beneficiary in online detection of DNS-based amplification attacks in SDN. In the future work, we aim to use other new machine learning methods such as deep learning, and we can identify other types of DRDoS attacks.



---

*Source: 1169035-2022-05-26.xml*