Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) are now increasingly leveraging Machine Learning (ML) techniques to detect malicious network activities. Numerous papers have scrutinized the security of ML-based NIDS (ML-NIDS) by testing them against various attacks involving adversarial perturbations. The findings were oftentimes worrying: by making imperceptible changes to a given input, powerful ML models would be bypassed. In this context, we took a step back and wondered: where (i.e., in what "space") have these perturbations been applied? We argue that real-world adversaries can apply adversarial perturbations only by operating on the hosts they can control -- a concept which we define as _host-space perturbations_. To some, such an observation may seem trivial. And yet, through a systematic literature review (n=316), we found that prior work applied perturbations by manipulating pre-collected datapoints (e.g., a packet _captured by the router_, or a network flow _analysed by the ML-NIDS_). Such operations, while not impossible, may be outside the reach of an attacker who can only control some (unprivileged) hosts in a network. Hence, to demonstrate how to craft host-space perturbations and study some of their effects, we experimented on well-known benchmarks and a real-world network. We show that ML-NIDS that can detect the SSH-bruteforcing attempts launched via a given command string cannot detect any attempt launched by changing _a single character_ of such a string. We then examined how such a minuscule change in the "problem space" (i.e., the attacker's host) can lead to devastating effects on the "feature space". We derive lessons learned on how to practically assess host-space perturbations. Our stance is that the security of ML-NIDS should be re-assessed.

翻译：暂无翻译