References
[1]Anselmi D, Boscovich R, etal. Security intelligence report,
Security in the cloud. Communications of the ACM ,
2010;53(11):16–18.
[2] Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph A, Katz R, Konwinski A,
Lee G, Patterson D, Rabkin A, Stoica I, et al. A view of cloud
computing. Communications of the ACM, 2010;53(4):50–58.
[3] Chandrashekar J. The Dark Cloud Understanding and Defending
Against Botnets and Stealthy Malware. IntelRTechnology Journal,2009;13(2).
[4] Clayton R. Stopping spam by extrusion detection. In First
Conference on Email and Anti-Spam , 2004.
[5] Dagon D, Gu G, Lee C, and Lee W. A taxonomy of botnet structures
. In acsac, IEEE Computer Society, 2007;325–339.
[6] Haddadi H. Fighting online click-fraud using bluff ads.ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2010;40(2):21–25.
[7] Ianelli V, and Hackworth A. Botnets as a vehicle for online
crime. CERT Coordination Center , 2005;1–28.
[8] Jing L, Yang, X., Kaveh G, Hongmei D, and Jingyuan Z. Botnet:
Classification, attacks, detection, tracing, and preventive measures.EURASIP journal on wireless communications and networking , 2009.
[9] Kshetri N . The economics of click fraud . IEEE Security
and Privacy , 2010;45–53.
[10] Maggi F, and Zanero S. Rethinking security in a cloudy
world. Politecnico di Milano, Tech. Rep. TR-2010-11 , 2010.
[11] Mirkovic J, and Reiher P. A taxonomy of DDoS attack and DDoS
defense mechanisms. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review ,
2004; 34(2):39– 53.
[12] Badis, Hammi, Guillaume Doyen, and RidaKhatoun. A collaborative
approach for a source based detection of botclouds. In Integrated
Network Management (IM), IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on, 2015;
906-909.
[13] Cogranne, Rémi, Guillaume Doyen, NisrineGhadban, and
BadisHammi. Detecting Botclouds at Large Scale: A Decentralized and
Robust Detection Method for Multi-Tenant Virtualized
Environments. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service
Management, 2018;15(1):68-82.
[14] Somani, Gaurav, Manoj Singh Gaur, DheerajSanghi, Mauro Conti,
and MuttukrishnanRajarajan. Scale Inside-out: Rapid Mitigation of Cloud
DDoS Attacks. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure
Computing , 2018;15(6):959-973.
[15] Bhaya, Wesam, and Mehdi EbadyManaa. DDoS attack detection
approach using an efficient cluster analysis in large data scale.In New Trends in Information & Communications Technology
Applications (NTICT), Annual Conference on, 2017;168-173.
[16] Alsirhani, Amjad, SrinivasSampalli, and Peter Bodorik. DDoS
Attack Detection System: Utilizing Classification Algorithms with Apache
Spark. In New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), 2018 9th
IFIP International Conference on , 2018; 1-7.
[17] Iqbal S, Kiah MLM, Dhaghighi B, Hussain M, Khan S, Khan MK, and
Choo KKR. A taxonomy and intrusion detection and prevention as a
service. Journal of Network and Computer Applications,2016;74:98-120.
[18] Li B, Liu P, and Lin L, June. A cluster-based intrusion
detection framework for monitoring the traffic of cloud environments.In 2016 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cyber Security and
Cloud Computing (CSCloud), 2016; 42-45.
[19] Idhammad M, Afdel K, and Belouch M. Distributed intrusion
detection system for cloud environments based on data mining
techniques. Procedia Computer Science, 2018;127: 35-41.
Figure 1: Cloud Architecture
Figure 2 :Cloud Services
Figure 3: Structure of Botnet
Figure 4 :Flow diagram of proposed work
Figure 5 :WAP-tree with linkage (dotted line) for the frequent
sub-sequences in Table1
Figure 6: Protocol Format 1
Figure 7: Protocol Format 2
Figure 8: Weighted samples for final classifier
Figure 9: shows the ratio of packet delivery during normal and
attack period
Figure 10: shows the packet loss ratio of the network during
normal flow and attack
Figure 11: shows that throughput of the network under normal
and attack period
Figure 12: shows the clustering of botnet attack which leads to
Distributed DoS attack
Figure 13: Threat analysis of the proposed system
Figure 14: shows the clustering of spam type botnet attack
Figure 15: Comparison regarding encryption time
Figure 16: Comparison regarding decryption time
Figure 17: Comparison regarding sensitivity
Figure 18: Comparison regarding specificity
Figure 19: Comparison regarding FDR
Figure 20: Comparison regarding accuracy
Figure 21: Comparison regarding precision ratio
Figure 22: Comparison regarding precision
Figure 23: Comparison regarding F-measure
Figure 24: Comparison regarding accuracy
Figure 25: Comparison regarding accuracy
Figure 26: Comparison regarding workload estimation
Figure 27: Comparison regarding FAR
Figure 28: Comparison regarding infection rates
Figure 29: Comparison regarding No. of iterations
Figure 30: Comparison regarding efficiency
Table 1: A database of web access sequences