Recent Advances in Security and Privacy for Wireless Sensor Networks
View this Special IssueResearch Article  Open Access
Accurately Identifying New QoS Violation Driven by HighDistributed LowRate Denial of Service Attacks Based on Multiple Observed Features
Abstract
We propose using multiple observed features of network traffic to identify new highdistributed lowrate quality of services (QoS) violation so that detection accuracy may be further improved. For the multiple observed features, we choose F feature in TCP packet header as a microscopic feature and, P feature and D feature of network traffic as macroscopic features. Based on these features, we establish multistream fused hidden Markov model (MFHMM) to detect stealthy lowrate denial of service (LDoS) attacks hidden in legitimate network background traffic. In addition, the threshold value is dynamically adjusted by using Kaufman algorithm. Our experiments show that the additive effect of combining multiple features effectively reduces the falsepositive rate. The average detection rate of MFHMM results in a significant 23.39% and 44.64% improvement over typical power spectrum density (PSD) algorithm and nonparametric cumulative sum (CUSUM) algorithm.
1. Introduction
In recent years malicious quality of services (QoS) violation attacks have become one of the most serious security threats to the Internet. New QoS attacks are increasingly showing the trend of highdistributed low rate. In the literature, this kind of attacks has been called shrew attacks [1], pulsing denial of service (DoS) attacks [2], or reduction of quality (RoQ) attacks [3]. For simplicity, we call all of them LDoS (lowrate denial of service) attacks in the sequel.
LDoS attacks are stealthy, periodic, pulsing, and low rate in attack volume, very different from early flooding type of attacks. A traditional detection system against flooding attacks is based on traffic volume analysis method in the time domain. However, it almost has no effect on new LDoS attack [4]. This is because the average bandwidth consumption differs very little between normal and attack streams.
In this paper, we present a new approach to identify LDoS attacks by combining multiple observed features at the micro and macrolevel. Multidimensional features are extremely valuable for describing slight changes of network properties and help us accurately differentiate attack flows. So our new approach can complement existing detection mechanisms based on onedimensional feature and overcome the bottleneck of detection accuracy for LDoS violation.
In microscopic features, we calculate weighted summation of flag bits (WSFB) in TCP packet header to reflect the packet’s internal slight change with and without LDoS attacks. Macroscopically, the best distinguishing characteristic between LDoS and normal flow is different periodicity in frequency domain [5]. Based on this fact, we choose weighted average size of packet in queue (WASPQ) in router as an observed sequence. Then, we convert the WASPQ sequence into frequencydomain spectrum using discrete Fourier transform (DFT) and achieve the power spectrum density (PSD) of WASPQ as a macroscopic feature. Moreover, we calculate the difference between request/response flows (DRRF) as another macroscopic feature.
Based on above threedimensional features, we develop a multistream fused hidden Markov model (MFHMM) to detect LDoS violation hidden in legitimate TCP/IP traffic. In addition, we adjust the decision threshold value dynamically based on Kaufman algorithm for improving the detection accuracy. Notations, symbols, and abbreviations used in this paper are summarized in Notations section. Only brief definitions are given here; details are given in subsequent sections.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the related work. Section 3 describes MFHMM, its advantages, and its training algorithm. Section 4 presents the overview of TFHMM procedure and explains how to extract multiobserved features of network traffic to establish the corresponding component HMM of TFHMM. Furthermore, we also introduce the threshold dynamic adjustment based on Kaufman algorithm. In Section 5, we compare our work with those of other researchers and discuss the training and recognition time of TFHMM. Finally, we conclude our paper in Section 6.
2. Related Work
Some scholars studied the mathematical model of LDoS attacks. By simulating various LDoS attacks, they discussed the properties of LDoS attacks and gave some suggestions on further research. MaciáFernández et al. [6] summarized the behavior of LDoS and proposed a mathematical model for the LDoS attack. They also discussed the development trend and made some recommendations for building defense techniques against this attack. He et al. [7] presented theoretical analyses, modeling, and simulations of various LDoS attacks. And they discussed the difficulties of defending and current solutions. Zhu et al. [8] discussed the vulnerabilities of TCP and the principle of lowrate attacks. Moreover, the simulation of attacks was investigated, and the further direction of research is suggested.
Most current LDoSrelated studies focus on using the frequency domain method to detect LDoS attack and have made clear progress. A research group [9] proposed an approach of detecting LDoS attack based on the model of small signal. Furthermore, in paper [10], they presented the method of multiple sampling averaging based on missing sampling (MSABMS) to detect LDoS attacks. An eigenvalueestimating matrix was established to estimate the attack period after the detection of LDoS attacks. In addition, they also indicated a scheme [11] of detecting LDoS attack based on time window sampling in time domain and capturing the periodicity by statistic analysis in frequency domain. Zhang et al. [12] proposed a detection method, which is similar to that of Yu et al. [13]. In this method, the sum of the power spectrum is computed within 1–50 Hz, and the intersection of the two fitting curves is taken as the judging threshold. Luo and Chang [2] proposed a twostage scheme to detect LDoS attacks on a victim network. The first stage is a discrete wavelet transform (DWT) analysis of the network traffic. The second stage is to detect change points by using a nonparametric cumulative sum (CUSUM) algorithm. Liu [14] proposed an LDoS attack detection method by calculating the Holder based on binary discrete wavelet analysis. Shevtekar et al. [15] presented an approach of detecting the periodicity of attack flow based on autocorrelation of flow.
Some detection methods based on traditional traffic characteristics are proposed in recent years. These methods detect the LDoS attacks by searching and identifying the abnormal network traffic caused by the LDoS attacks. For example, the exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) method was presented in papers [16, 17]. However, the EWMA algorithm may smooth not only the normal traffic but also the abnormal traffic. This will affect the detection accuracy for the LDoS attacks. Therefore, paper [18] proposed an adaptive EWMA method which used an adaptive weighting function instead of the constant weighting of EWMA algorithm. The adaptive EWMA can smooth the accidental error and retain the exceptional mutation. Thus, it is more efficient than EWMA method.
Unlike a popular deployment location of detection system, paper [19] proposed an adaptive detection method for LDoS attacks in sourceend network. The method does not require the distribution assumption of the traffic samples. Moreover, they presented the automatic adjustment of the detection threshold according to the traffic conditions.
In particular, Xiang et al. [20] innovatively propose using two new information metrics to detect lowrate DDoS attacks by measuring the difference between legitimate traffic and attack traffic. The proposed generalized entropy metric and information distance metric outperform the existing popular approach as they can clearly enlarge the adjudication distance and then obtain the better detection sensitivity.
In summary, most researches use onedimensional information of network traffic to establish algorithms for detecting LDoS attack. Though some algorithms are sophisticated, onedimensional information is not enough to accurately differentiate stealthy LDoS attack hidden in legitimate traffic. Despite gratifying progress, the high falsepositive rate is still a striking bottleneck.
3. Multistream Fused HMM
We first describe basic properties of multistream fused HMM and then give its mathematical description and training algorithm in detail.
3.1. Basic Properties
To accurately identify stealthy LDoS violation hidden in legitimate network traffic, the combination of multiobserved features is considered in our scheme by using multistream fused HMM [21]. According to the maximum entropy principle and the maximum mutual information (MMI) criterion, MFHMM constructs a new structure linking multiple HMMs. MFHMM is the generalization of twostream fused HMM [22].
The main advantages of MFHMM are as follows.(1)Every observation feature can be modeled by a component HMM, so the performance of every feature can be analyzed individually. The set of features can be modified according to the performance analysis.(2)Compared with other existing model fusion methods (e.g., CHMM [23], MHMM [24], etc.), MFHMM reaches a better balance between model complexity and performance.(3)MFHMM has stronger robustness. If one component HMM fails due to some reason, the other component HMM can still work. Thus, the final result is still a valuable reference for the recognition judgment.
3.2. Mathematical Description
HMM is the basis of MFHMM. In brief, we only discuss MFHMM, and paper [25] discussed the HMM definition and relevant algorithms in detail. The mathematical symbols in this paper are consistent with the standard HMM description symbol.
Let represent tightly coupled observing sequences. Assume that can be modeled by corresponding HMMs with hidden states . In MFHMM, an optimal solution for is given according to the maximum entropy principle and the maximum mutual information criterion .
In order to calculate , firstly we need to calculate every component ; here . The th can be given through
And assume
It has a good record in recognizing and detecting LDoS attacks, though the conditional independence assumption is always violated in practice. The success is because of the small number of parameters to be estimated in assumption. Without this assumption, some complicated algorithms require more training data and are more susceptible to local maximum during parameter estimation.
So, the estimate of can be given by
There are different expressions to different . To our threestream fused HMM (TFHMM), (3) corresponds to (4a), (4b), and (4c) as follows;
In practice, if the component HMMs have different reliabilities, they may be combined by different weights to get a better result:
Here, .
3.3. Training Algorithm
The training algorithm of MFHMM is a threestep process.(1) component HMMs are trained independently by representative algorithm, such as BaumWelch algorithm, segmented Kmeans algorithm, or hybrid method EM algorithm.(2)The best hidden state sequences of the component HMMs are estimated by the Viterbi algorithm.(3)Calculate the coupling parameters between the HMMs.
To our threestream fused HMM, step is to calculate (6a), (6b), and (6c):
Step is to calculate (7a), (7b), and (7c):
Step is to estimate the coupling parameters between HMM1, HMM2, and HMM3:
4. Identifying LDoS Violation Using THHMM
In this section, we first present the procedure of identifying LDoS violation by using TFHMM. Then, we explain how to establish threecomponent HMMs of TFHMM, including FHMM, PHMM, and DHMM. At last, we introduce the threshold dynamic adjustment based on Kaufman algorithm.
4.1. Procedure Overview
In order to make it easier to understand, we firstly introduce the procedure of THHMM, as illustrated in Figure 1.
(1) Split into Subsequence. Let the length of the detected sequence be . Split the detected sequence with a length splitting window, so the set of these subsequences is ; here, .
(2) Extract Three Observed Features. Extract F feature, P feature, and D feature, and then form the threedimensional observation state sequence.
(3) Calculate the Output Probability. Input state sequences to TFHMM, and calculate the output probability of every subsequence, denoted by .
(4) Label a Questionable Subsequence. If is less than the threshold , it is labeled as a questionable subsequence (Qs); otherwise it is marked as a normal subsequence (Ns).
(5) Count the Ratio of Questionable Subsequence. After computing and labeling all subsequences, count the ratio according to
(6) Adjust Threshold Value by Kaufman Algorithm. During the detection system run, the threshold value will be adjusted by using Kaufman algorithm. In practice, the average detection rate of TFHMM has been effectively improved with it.
(7) Determine the Violation. At last, compare with the decision threshold value threshold: if , it is determined as LDoS violations; else, there is no violations.
4.2. Establishing ThreeComponent HMMs
In order to apply TFHMM, we extract multiobserved features of network traffic, including WSFB feature, PSD of WASPQ feature, and DRRF feature. They constitute threedimensional observation state sequence. Each sequence is modeled by a component HMM. Threecomponent HMMs together make up TFHMM.
4.2.1. FHMM
In order to reduce network QoS, spoofed TCP/IP packets must be used. In microscopic view, attackers usually use random number to fill internal attribute fields of the forged packet, resulting in vast differences with the real data packet. We choose flag bits in TCP packet header as a microscopic feature to describe a slight internal change of packet attribute fields.
To enlarge differences of flag bits between the forged packets with the real ones, we define different weights to different flag bits [26], as in Table 1.

Next, we achieve the weighted summation of flag bits (WSFB) by using
So we can construct a component HMM based on the observing sequence of WSFB; simply mark it as FHMM.
4.2.2. PHMM
Paper [27] indicates that attack data packet occupies a certain proportion in router buffer queue at LDoS attack, and the greater the damage is, the higher the proportion is. At the same time, paper [28, 29] concludes that attackers must use the data packet as short as possible to achieve a good attack effect, which results in an obvious decrease of the average size of packets in buffer queue under attacks than under normal conditions. We introduce the weighted average size of packet in queue (WASPQ) to describe this periodicity change in macroscopic view.
Let the number of packets in queue when at sampling time be and let each size of packet be , . In order to highlight the characteristic that the shorter the packet, the more important, we introduce weight , , and calculate the WASPQ value as follows:
In order to depict inherent periodic feature of LDoS attack, we take as the discrete signal series and sample it with a period of 0.1 sec. The change of value with and without attacks is modeled by a random process: , where is a constant time interval, which we assume 0.1 sec, and is a set of positive integers, and, at each time point , is a random variable, representing the total number of in .
To study the periodicity embedded in the sequence, we use its autocorrelation function in discrete time as follows:
The captures the correlation of the sequence and itself at interval . If there is any periodicity existing, autocorrelation function is capable of finding it.
To figure out the periodicity embedded in the sequence, we convert the autocorrelation time series by discrete Fourier transform (DFT) to generate the power spectrum density (PSD) as follows:where is the point DFT, .
We note that we use the standard periodogram rather than Welch’s method of averaged periodogram [30]. This is because in our work we are interested in the detection and estimation of a single periodic feature, which is better achieved using the standard periodogram as discussed in [31].
Therefore, we can get the component HMM based on the PSD of WASPQ feature, simply referred to as PHMM.
4.2.3. DHMM
In a normal TCP session of twoway communications, the request flow is limited by the response flow [32]. In the macroscopic view, the difference value between them should remain relatively stable normally. In case of LDoS attacks, a huge number of forgery request packets will lead to a sharp increase of the difference. Therefore, we introduce the difference between request/response flows (DRRF) to represent the difference change.
Let the sequence be the difference value between request flow and response flow; where is a request flow and is a response flow.
Usually, is closely related to the network size, the number of hosts, and the sampling time. In order to counteract the influence of them, we convert it as follows:
In formula (15), could be expressed as a recurrence relation of , where is a custom constant, . Thus, by using formula (16), we can get , which will not be impacted by factors mentioned above. Instead, it is simply about current network traffic. We choose as another macroscopic feature to indicate the overall change of twoway communications caused by LDoS attacks.
So we can establish a component HMM based on DRRF feature, simply referred to as DHMM.
4.3. Adjusting Threshold Dynamic
Enlightened by loadshedding method and Kaufman algorithm [33], we adjust the threshold value dynamically for improving the detection precision.
Let the denote the mapping variable of the system effective payload and our algorithm threshold in the th time span. Define . The range of values is in , where is a rather small but not constant. This is because if is , all data flows are not allowed to pass through it. Hypothesize that, right at the th time over, the actual payload in the system is , and is the maximum number of payload, so we get . could be presented in a recursive way as follows:
And since , we can get the final equation of ; that is,where .
In this way, threshold value could be computed out by .
5. Experiments and Performance Results
In this section, we firstly introduce experimental environment setup. Then, we compare the normal flow with the attack one in aspect of the periodicity of WASPQ and the output of TFHMM. Based on the comparisons, we validate the sufficient sensitivity of TFHMM. Finally, we evaluate the performance results of TFHMM in terms of detection rate, falsepositive rate, average detection rate, training time, and recognition time.
5.1. Experimental Environment Setup
Data acquisition in real LDoS attacks is very difficult. Enlightened by papers [34–36], we construct experimental data by fusing controlled attack flows into real network background traffic.
To generate attack data, we have built a controlled experimental platform. 60 VMware hosts based on Windows XP system are chosen as user hosts. The collector and analyzer of network traffic are installed at Ubuntu 12.04 with Quad core 2.4 GHz CPU and 4 G RAM. We install Zombie tools at part of user hosts as bots. The controlled LDoS attack is launched by these bots, and then our experimental attack data could be achieved.
Accordingly, we choose a day’s network traffic of a primary node in CERNET backbone networks as our experimental background traffic. There are 305985 records in the time window of 10 minutes. After the preprocessing, the background data contains 19877 hosts. Then, we fuse the attack data into the background traffic to evaluate TFHMM performance.
5.2. Periodicity Analysis of WASPQ in PHMM
The most obvious contrast between LDoS and normal flow is different periodicity in frequency domain. We firstly compare the normal WASPQ value with the attack WASPQ value.
As illustrated in Figure 2(a), in normal condition, the value of WASPQ is relatively high, almost 1100, because of the small proportion of short data packet in cache queue. In case of LDoS attacks, attackers use massive number of very short data packet to launch suddenly, and the value of WASPQ declines abruptly as shown in Figure 2(b), from about 1100 to 50. This is due to the fact that we use the weighted approach and highlight the importance of short packet in WASPQ calculation. We go on to draw the according periodograms of Figures 2(a) and 2(b). As you can see in Figure 2(d), in case of LDoS attacks, the change of WASPQ has obvious periodicity, while normal flow has none in Figure 2(c).
(a) WASPQ of normal flow
(b) WASPQ of attack flow
(c) Periodogram of normal flow
(d) Periodogram of attack flow
Next, we draw the corresponding PSD of WASPQ, as shown in Figure 3. We can see that there is a very wide frequency band in normal condition, but when attacking, the PSD value is almost below 51.5 Hz, and there is no distribution in higher frequency bands. We calculate the cumulative traffic spectrum (CTS) [5] of PSD, as shown in Figure 4. 98.65% power of attack flow distributes under 51.5 Hz. Relatively, 39.44% power of normal flow is lower than 51.5 Hz. The huge difference can make PHMM the better detection sensitivity.
5.3. Comparison Output of TFHMM in Normal and in Attack
In order to validate the sensibility of TFHMM, we extract 30 seconds normal flow fragment firstly. Secondly, we extract 30 seconds fragment of LDoS violation and overlap them to one time axis. As shown in Figure 5, in normal, the value fluctuate in the range of −40~−984, while, under attacking, the peak value could reach 2.4~55 times more than normal value, or even larger. The red curve in Figure 5 obviously shows the 5 impulse lowrate violations, so it can be seen that TFHMM has enough detection sensitivity to identify LDoS attacks hidden in legitimate network traffic.
5.4. Detection Rate and FalsePositive Rate
In this section, we compare TFHMM with representative nonparametric CUSUM algorithm [14] and PSD method [12] in detail. We focus on the detection accuracy and false positives of three algorithms in different network traffic. In order to evaluate impartially, various network traffics are employed in the following experiments, including different network utilization rates and attack intensions with or without legitimate periodicity flows. For simplicity, we call legitimate periodicity flows the interference in the sequel.
First, define detection rate as
Here, is the number of attacks which have been detected correctly. is the number of real attacks existing.
Next, define falsepositive rate aswhere is the number of alarms by the detection algorithm and the difference between and is the number of false positives.
The experiment results are shown as in Table 2.

(1) Without Attacks and without the Interference (See No. 1 Group). There are no periodicity flows, so periodicitybased algorithms (PSD and TFHMM’s PHMM) give no false positives. However, CUSUM algorithm shows 3 false positives. This is because it is based on traffic volume accumulated method in the time domain, having no analysis capabilities of frequency domain.
(2) Without Attacks and with the Interference (See No. 2 Group). When injecting the interference flows and increasing utilization rate of network, false positives start appearing in the PSD algorithm but not in TFHMM. This is due to the fact that the PSD cannot differentiate between the periodicity of the interference flows and one of pulse attacks, just capturing the periodicity. While TFHMM’s PHMM can not only find the periodicity of flows but also analyze the WASPQ changes caused by LDoS attacks, it helps TFHMM make an accurate distinction between legitimate periodicity flows and LDoS pulse flows.
(3) With Attacks and without the Interference (See No. 3 Group). Without the interference, the PSD and TFHMM can identify exactly 2 times attacks hidden in background traffic based on the obvious periodicity of pulse attacks and show no false positives. But CUSUM still remains relatively high false positives because it is not a learningoriented algorithm and is not also a frequencydomainbased one.
(4) With Attacks and with the Interference (See No. 4 and No. 5 Group). In No. 4 group, the result from TFHMM is closer to REAL than other algorithms. Its is 12.12%. Conversely, the of CUSUM reaches up to 57.78%; the of PSD is 37.50%. With a growing intension of attacks and interferences, the of other two methods will be even higher.
In No. 5 group, we increased both of the attack intension and network utilization rate, and the advantages of TFHMM based on multiple observed features becomes apparent. The of CUSUM is 76.82% and the of PSD is 57.48%, while its is 13.62%, far less than other algorithms. The reason for such low the of TFHMM is that the two components of FHMM and PHMM play an important role.
When massive packets of legitimate periodicity flows and pulse attack flows arrive at the router, the PSD algorithm cannot accurately differentiate between them because it only uses the number of packet arrivals as a single periodic feature to find the periodicity in data sequence. Rather, the PHMM can identify them because of WASPQ value abnormal decrease by pulse attacks (As illustrated in Figure 2(b)). Furthermore, the FHMM can detect the packet’s internal attribute fields that have been tampered with, because spoofed packets in pulse attacks result in abnormal fluctuations of WSFB.
The additive effect of combining multidimensional features starts to dominate, so we see a lower falsepositive rate of TFHMM. These provide some of the advantages of detection accuracy in TFHMM not only with the higher detection rate, but also with the lower falsepositive rate.
5.5. Average Detection Rate
In order to evaluate three detection approaches objectively, we varied attack intension, network utilization rate, sampling time, and the interference. Thus, there are obvious differences between every two groups. From the 100 groups of data gained, we calculated their average detection rate as presented in Table 3.

In Table 3, the average detection rate of PSD is obviously higher than CUSUM algorithm because it takes into account the inherent periodicity of LDoS violation. But the false positive rate is not still reduced to a reasonably low level; it limits the improvement of the detection accuracy. In contrast, since TFHMM combines multiobserved features, its average detection rate reaches 92.78%, which is 1.93 times over CUSUM and 23.39% over PSD. It efficiently overcomes the bottleneck of limiting further increases in detection accuracy.
5.6. Training Time and Recognition Time
The time complexity of algorithms is vital to fast detection and response to QoS violation. Relevant experiments on training time and recognition time of the TFHMM are sketched as in Figures 6 and 7.
As shown in Figure 6, the most timeconsuming one is BaumWelch algorithm; it is about 5 to 10 times of the other two algorithms; the second one is hybrid algorithm and then Kmeans algorithm. Furthermore, BaumWelch algorithm is most sensitive to the length of segment. For example, using the same training sequence, the training time of is 1.68 times more than the one of . But Kmeans and hybrid algorithms are insensitive to the length of segment.
And yet the recognition time of TFHMM is short as shown in Figure 7. It is suitable for fast detection and responses to malicious QoS violations. Our ultimate goal is to achieve automated intrusion detection and responses in real time.
6. Conclusions
Current new LDoS violations are more and more characterized by highdistributed low rate. It is very difficult that fast detection and responses to stealthy LDoS streams are hidden in massive legitimate network traffic. The high falsepositive rate is still the most striking bottleneck.
To overcome the bottleneck, our research contributions are summarized below in three technical aspects.
(1) Combining Multidimensional Features. Multiple micro and macrofeatures, including WSFB, WASPQ, and DRRF, are combined together by using MFHMM. The additive effects of combining multidimensional features make encouraging results on high detection rate with low falsepositive rate.
(2) Synthesizing Methods in Frequency Domain and in Time Domain. Leveraging PSD analysis in the component PHMM, we capture and identify the periodicity of LDoS pulse attacks in frequency domain. Furthermore, we calculate WSFB and DRRF feature in time domain by the components of FHMM and DHMM. These components make the accurate matching in detecting LDoS attacks at traffic streaming level.
(3) Adjusting Threshold Value Dynamically. Enlightened by loadshedding method and Kaufman algorithm, we adjust the threshold value dynamically to further reduce the falsepositive rate.
For continued effort, we aim to improve the detection accuracy in complicated network traffic and ultimately to a fully automated process of detection and responses to LDoS attacks in real time.
Notations
CTS:  Cumulative traffic spectrum 
CUSUM:  Cumulative Sum 
D feature:  DRRF feature 
DDoS:  Distributed denial of service 
DFT:  Discrete Fourier transform 
DHMM:  The component HMM based on D feature 
DoS:  Denial of service 
DR:  Detection rate 
DRRF:  Difference between request/response flows 
DWT:  Discrete wavelet transform 
F feature:  WSFB feature 
FHMM:  The component HMM based on F feature 
LDoS:  Lowrate denial of Service 
:  The output probability of TFHMM 
MFHMM:  Multistream fused hidden Markov model 
Ns:  Normal subsequence 
P feature:  PSD of WASPQ feature 
PHMM:  The component HMM based on P feature 
PSD:  Power spectrum density 
QoS:  Quality of services 
Qs:  Questionable subsequence 
RoQ:  Reduction of quality 
TFHMM:  Threestream fused hidden Markov model 
WASPQ:  Weighted average size of packet in queue 
WSFB:  Weighted summation of flag bits. 
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of this work by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants nos. 60703023, 90204014) and Technology Development Plan of Jilin Province of China (Grant no. 20090110).
References
 A. Kuzmanovic and E. W. Knightly, “Lowrate TCPtargeted denial of service attacks: the shrew vs. the mice and elephants,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
 X. Luo and R. K. C. Chang, “On a new class of pulsing denialofservice attacks and the defense,” in Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS '05), San Diego, Calif, USA, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Guirguis, A. Bestavros, and I. Matta, “Exploiting the transients of adaptation for RoQ attacks on internet resources,” in Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP '04), pp. 184–195, Berlin, Germany, October 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Guirguis, A. Bestavros, I. Matta, and Y. Zhang, “Reduction of Quality (RoQ) attacks on Internet endsystems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communication (INFOCOM '05), pp. 1362–1372, Miami, Fla, USA, March 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 Y. Chen and K. Hwang, “Collaborative detection and filtering of shrew DDoS attacks using spectral analysis,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 1137–1151, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. MaciáFernández, J. E. DíazVerdejo, and P. GarcíaTeodoro, “Mathematical model for lowrate dos attacks against application servers,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 519–529, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. X. He, T. Liu, Q. Cao et al., “A survey of lowrate denialofservice attacks,” Journal of Frontiers of Computer Science & Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 Q. Zhu, Z. Yizhi, and X. Chuiyi, “Research and survey of lowrate denial of service attacks,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology: Smart Service Innovation through Mobile Interactivity (ICACT '11), pp. 1195–1198, GangwonDo, Republic of Korea, February 2011. View at: Google Scholar
 Z. J. Wu and B. S. Pei, “The detection of LDoS attack based on the model of small signal,” Acta Electronica Sinica, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1456–1460, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
 W. ZhiJun, Z. HaiTao, W. MingHua, and P. BaoSong, “MSABMSbased approach of detecting LDoS attack,” Computers & Security, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 402–417, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z.J. Wu, H.L. Zeng, and M. Yue, “Approach of detecting LDoS attack based on time window statistic,” Journal on Communications, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 55–62, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 C.W. Zhang, J.P. Yin, Z.P. Cai, and W.F. Chen, “RRED: robust RED algorithm to counter lowrate denialofservice attacks,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 489–491, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Yu, H. Kai, and Y.K. Kwok, “Collaborative defense against periodic shrew DDoS attacks in frequency domain,” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, pp. 2–27, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 D. Liu, Research on LDoS attack in softswitch network [M.S. thesis], Communication and Information Engineering, 2013.
 A. Shevtekar, K. Anantharam, and N. Ansari, “Low rate TCP denialofservice attack detection at edge routers,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 363–365, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. Chen, H. Y. Liu, and X. S. Chen, “Detecting LDoS attacks based on abnormal network traffic,” KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 1831–1853, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. Chen, H. Liu, and X. Chen, “EBDT: a method for detecting LDoS attack,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA '12), pp. 911–916, Shenyang, China, June 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Tang, K. Chen, X. Chen, H. Y. Liu, and X. Li, “Adaptive EWMA Method based on abnormal network traffic for LDoS attacks,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2014, Article ID 496376, 11 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Yu, “An adaptive method for sourceend detection of pulsing DoS attacks,” International Journal of Security and its Applications, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 279–288, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Xiang, K. Li, and W. Zhou, “Lowrate DDoS attacks detection and traceback by using new information metrics,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 426–437, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Zeng, J. Tu, B. Pianfetti et al., “Audiovisual affect recognition through Multistream Fused HMM for HCI,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR '05), pp. 967–972, San Diego, Calif, USA, June 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. Pan, S. E. Levinson, T. S. Huang, and Z.P. Liang, “A fused hidden Markov model with application to bimodal speech processing,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 573–581, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
 M. Brand, N. Oliver, and A. Pentland, “Coupled hidden Markov models for complex action recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 994–999, San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 L. K. Saul and M. I. Jordan, “Mixed memory Markov models: decomposing complex stochastic processes as mixtures of simpler ones,” Machine Learning, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 75–87, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. R. Rabiner, “Tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 257–286, 1989. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Zhou, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, and X. Hu, “DDoS attack detection method based on hidden Markov model,” Computer Research and Development, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1594–1599, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z.J. Wu and D. Zhang, “Attack simulation and signature extraction of lowrate DDoS,” Tongxin Xuebao/Journal on Communications, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 71–76, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 H.P. Hu, J. Zhang, B. Liu, L. Chen, and X. Chen, “Simulation and analysis of distributed lowrate denialofservice attacks,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology (ICCIT '10), pp. 620–626, IEEE, Seoul, Republic of Korea, December 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Zhang, H.P. Hu, B. Liu, and F.T. Xiao, “Detecting LDoS attack based on ASPQ,” Journal on Communications, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 79–84, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 P. D. Welch, “The use of the fast Fourier transform for estimation of spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms,” IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 70–74, 1967. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. C. So, Y. T. Chan, Q. Ma, and P. C. Ching, “Comparison of various periodograms for sinusoid detection and frequency estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 945–952, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Mirkovic and P. Reiher, “DWARD: a sourceend defense against flooding denialofservice attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 216–232, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Kasera, J. Pinheiro, C. Loader, M. Karaul, A. Hari, and T. LaPorta, “Fast and robust signaling overload control,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP '01), pp. 323–331, Riverside, Calif, USA, November 2001. View at: Google Scholar
 J. Francois, S. Wang, R. State et al., “BotTrack: tracking botnets using NetFlow and PageRank,” in NETWORKING 2011, vol. 6640 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–14, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. L. Jiang, X. L. Shao, and Y. F. Li, “Online botnet detection algorithm using MapReduce,” Journal of Electronics and Information Technology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1732–1738, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Nagaraja, P. Mittal, C. Hong et al., “BotGrep: finding P2P bots with structured graph analysis,” in Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Conference on Security, Washington, DC, USA, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Jian Kang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.