NetNexus: Intelligent Network Monitoring Device for Small Business

Abstract

Network security of small businesses is pivotal with evolving technology. Presently most small business users tend to use the Internet as their main source of marketing, storing sensitive information, and performing business processes. Compared to large companies, small business networks often neglect information security. Most of the existing solutions that integrate advanced technologies like machine learning are not cost-effective for the target audience. To address the security concerns, this research proposes an innovative approach named ‘NetNexus’ an intelligent network monitoring device built on a Raspberry Pi module. The proposed model provides an Access control list that is integrated with a malware detector with 85% accuracy, a brute force attack detection, and a user-behavior-based quota allocation model with 91% accuracy. Furthermore, the NetNexus device is integrated with a device security mechanism with a Physically Unclonable function to protect the device from tampering and cloning. NetNexus is targeted at small businesses that neglect the need for network security due to the high expenses in implementation. This product has focused on a cost-effective approach which will cost around 1500 USD, and alternatively, it is efficient as only one single device is capable of securing the network and managing the performance. 

Country : Sri Lanka

1 Thriyashi Silva2 Helani Herath3 Vihan Udawela4 Kavindu Rathnayake5 A.N.Senarathne6 Dinithi Pandithage

  1. Faculty of Computing, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, Malabe, Sri Lanka
  2. Faculty of Computing, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, Malabe, Sri Lanka
  3. Faculty of Computing, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, Malabe, Sri Lanka
  4. Faculty of Computing, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, Malabe, Sri Lanka
  5. Faculty of Computing, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, Malabe, Sri Lanka
  6. Faculty of Computing, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, Malabe, Sri Lanka

IRJIET, Volume 7, Issue 10, October 2023 pp. 551-558

doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2023.710072

References

  1. Z. Chen, W. Zhang, and G. Wang, “Design of algorithm for verifying correctness of firewall access control list,” 2020, pp. 190–193. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/CCET50901.2020.9213149.
  2. U. V. Nikam and V. M. Deshmuh, “Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning Classifiers in Malware Detection,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing and Electrical Circuits and Electronics (ICDCECE), pp. 1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCECE53908.2022.9793102
  3. K. Sethi, R. Kumar, L. Sethi, P. Bera, and P. K. Patra, “A Novel Machine Learning Based Malware Detection and Classification Framework,” in 2019 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security), pp. 1–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/CyberSecPODS.2019.8885196.
  4. J. McGiff, W. G. Hatcher, J. Nguyen, W. Yu, E. Blasch, and C. Lu, “Towards Multimodal Learning for Android Malware Detection,” in 2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), pp. 432–436. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCNC.2019.8685502.
  5. L. Bošnjak, J. Sres, and B. Brumen, Bruteforce and dictionary attack on hashed realworld passwords. 2018, pp. 1161–1166. doi: https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO.2018.8400211.
  6. T. Gautam and A. Jain, “Analysis of brute force attack using TG — Dataset,” in 2015 SAI Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys), pp. 984–988. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/IntelliSys.2015.7361263.
  7. H. TAŞÇI, S. GÖNEN, M. A. BARIŞKAN, G. KARACAYILMAZ, B. ALHAN, and E. N. YILMAZ, “Password Attack Analysis Over Honeypot Using Machine Learning Password Attack Analysis,” Turkish Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science, Aug. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.47000/tjmcs.971141.
  8. W. Cabral, C. Valli, L. Sikos, and S. Wakeling, “Advanced Cowrie Configuration to Increase Honeypot Deceptiveness,” 2021, pp. 317–331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/9783030781200_21.
  9. R. Saini and R. Behl, An Introduction to AWS—EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud). 2020, pp. 99–102. doi: https://doi.org/10.15439/2020KM4.
  10. S. i Chu and S. c Chang, “TimeofDay Internet Access Management: Virtual Pricing Vs. Quota Scheduling,” in 2006 10th IEEE Singapore International Conference on Communication Systems, pp. 1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCS.2006.301386.
  11. M. Siew, D. Cai, L. Li, and S. Quek, “Dynamic Pricing for ResourceQuota Sharing in MultiAccess Edge Computing,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2901–2912, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2020.3003051.
  12. Internet Access Gateway (IAG), SANGFOR, 2022. https://www.sangfor.com/Uploads/File/IAM%20Bandwidth%20Man (accessed Aug. 01, 2023).
  13. GuruhAryotejo and M Mufadhol, “Static and dynamic alliance: the solution of reliable internet bandwidth management,” vol. 1217, no. 1, pp. 012126–012126, May 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1217/1/012126.
  14. S. Yoon, B. Kim, and Y. Kang, “Multiple PUFbased lightweight authentication method in the IoT,” in 2021 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), pp. 1198–1200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTC52510.2021.9620972.
  15. Root of Trust: PUFrt | PUF-based Security IP SolutionsPUFsecurity, Mar. 02, 2022. https://www.pufsecurity.com/products/pufrt/#:~:text=PUFrt%E2%80%99s%20Hardware%20Root%20of%20Trust%20is%20ushering%20in (accessed Aug. 13, 2023).
  16. Y. Zheng, W. Liu, C. Gu, and C. H. Chang, “PUFBased Mutual Authentication and Key Exchange Protocol for PeertoPeer IoT Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 3299–3316, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2022.3193570.
  17. A.Braeken, “PUF based authentication protocol for IoT,” Symmetry, vol. 10, p. 352, Aug. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10080352.