AMDS: Attack-Aware Multi-Stage Defense System for Network Intrusion Detection with Two-Stage Adaptive Weight Learning
Organizations: School of Computing Sciences and Computer Engineering, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Abstract
Machine learning based network intrusion detection systems are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that degrade classification performance under both gradient-based and distribution shift threat models. Existing defenses typically apply uniform detection strategies, which may not account for heterogeneous attack characteristics. This paper proposes an attack-aware multi-stage defense framework that learns attack-specific detection strategies through a weighted combination of ensemble disagreement, predictive uncertainty, and distributional anomaly signals. Empirical analysis across seven adversarial attack types reveals distinct detection signatures, enabling a two-stage adaptive detection mechanism. Experimental evaluation on a benchmark intrusion detection dataset indicates that the proposed system attains 94.2% area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and improves classification accuracy by 4.5 percentage points and F1-score by 9.0 points over adversarially trained ensembles. Under adaptive white-box attacks with full architectural knowledge, the system appears to maintain 94.4% accuracy with a 4.2% attack success rate, though this evaluation is limited to two adaptive variants and does not constitute a formal robustness guarantee. Cross-dataset validation further suggests that defense effectiveness depends on baseline classifier competence and may vary with feature dimensionality. These results suggest that attack-specific optimization combined with multi-signal integration can provide a practical approach to improving adversarial robustness in machine learning-based intrusion detection systems.
Figures & tables
| Attack | Category | AUC | Dominant | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Entropy) | (Disagree) | (Anomaly) | Signal | |||
| FGSM | Gradient | 0.260 | 0.528 | 0.212 | 0.743 | Disagreement |
| PGD-L ∞ | Gradient | 0.269 | 0.465 | 0.267 | 0.759 | Disagreement |
| C&W | Gradient | 0.306 | 0.434 | 0.261 | 0.748 | Disagreement |
| SPSA | Gradient | 0.293 | 0.448 | 0.259 | 0.758 | Disagreement |
| Injection | Distribution | 0.433 | 0.360 | 0.207 | 0.896 | Entropy |
| Attack | Generic-Only | Attack-Specific | Two-Stage | vs Generic | vs Specific |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGSM | 0.545 | 0.743 | 0.943 | +0.398 | +0.200 |
| PGD-L ∞ | 0.552 | 0.759 | 0.943 | +0.391 | +0.184 |
| PGD-L 2 | 0.218 | 0.502 | 0.885 | +0.666 | +0.383 |
| C&W | 0.565 | 0.748 | 0.945 | +0.379 | +0.197 |
| SPSA | 0.551 | 0.758 | 0.943 | +0.392 | +0.185 |
| Injection | 0.652 | 0.896 | 0.966 | +0.313 | +0.070 |
| Metric | Baseline | Cascade | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Full AMDS) | (Adaptive) | ||
| Throughput (samples/sec) | 6,172 | 4,989 | 0.81 |
| Latency (ms/sample) | 0.16 | 0.20 | +0.04 |
| Overall Accuracy | 84.9% | 84.9% | 0.0 pp |
| Clean Accuracy | 96.3% | 96.3% | 0.0 pp |
| Routing Distribution: | |||
| Attack | Cat. | Standard | AT | AMDS | vs Std | vs AT | Std F1 | AT F1 | AMDS F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gradient-Based Attacks | |||||||||
| FGSM | G | 95.9% | 95.3% | 94.7% | pp | pp | 88.3% | 87.1% | 87.4% |
| PGD-L ∞ | G | 95.9% | 96.5% | 94.2% | pp | pp | 88.0% | 89.4% | 86.1% |
| PGD-L 2 | G | 82.6% | 84.1% | 79.4% | pp | pp | 63.0% | 67.8% | 55.3% |
| C&W | G | 92.6% | 92.6% | 91.6% | pp | pp | 79.3% | 79.5% | 80.3% |
| SPSA | G | 95.7% | 91.4% | 95.0% | pp | pp | 87.6% | 81.1% | 87.0% |
| Configuration | Overall | Overall | Clean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | |
| Full AMDS | 84.9% | 73.0% | 96.3% |
| Ablated Configurations: | |||
| Generic weights only | 81.4% | 63.2% | 98.1% |
| Component contribution | pp | pp | pp |
| Uniform model voting | 81.1% | 61.0% | 99.5% |
| Metric | CSE-CIC-IDS2018 | UNSW-NB15 | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset Characteristics | ||||
| Features | 77 | 190 | +113 | 2.47 more dimensions |
| Attack Budget ( ) | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.0 | Same nominal budget |
| Effective Attack Strength | 1.0 | +0.57 | Scales with | |
| Baseline Performance | ||||
| Baseline Accuracy | 80.7% | 52.9% | pp | Attack strength exceeds baseline capacity |
| Attack Type | Standard | AMDS | Detection |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ensemble | Accuracy | Rate (ADS) | |
| Standard Attacks (Non-Adaptive) | |||
| FGSM | 95.1% | 94.6% | 2.4% |
| PGD-L ∞ | 95.5% | 93.4% | 1.8% |
| PGD-L 2 | 83.4% | 80.5% | 14.0% |
| Adaptive Attacks (ADS-Aware) | |||
Network Intrusion Detection
Network intrusion detection identifies malicious or abnormal network activity to help protect computers, connected devices, and critical infrastructure.
See all 165 papers