Datasets
Standard Dataset
5GC PFCP Intrusion Detection Dataset
- Citation Author(s):
- Submitted by:
- Panagiotis Rado...
- Last updated:
- Tue, 05/09/2023 - 09:51
- DOI:
- 10.21227/e0gj-ev03
- Data Format:
- Research Article Link:
- Links:
- License:
- Categories:
- Keywords:
Abstract
The advancements in the field of telecommunications have resulted in an increasing demand for robust, high-speed, and secure connections between User Equipment (UE) instances and the Data Network (DN). The implementation of the newly defined 3rd Generation Partnership Project 3GPP (3GPP) network architecture in the 5G Core (5GC) represents a significant leap towards fulfilling these demands. This architecture promises faster connectivity, low latency, higher data transfer rates, and improved network reliability. 5GC has been designed to support a wide range of critical Next Generation Internet of Things (NG-IoT) and industrial use cases that require reliable end-to-end communication services. However, this evolution raises severe security issues. In the context of the SANCUS project, a set of cyberattacks were investigated and emulated by K3Y against the Packet Forwarding Control Protocol (PFCP) between the Session Management Function (SMF) and the User Plane Function (UPF). Based on these attacks, an intrusion detection dataset was generated: 5GC PFCP Intrusion Detection Dataset that can support the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) that use Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques. The goal of this report is to describe this dataset.
Dataset Files
- PFCP Session Modification DoS Attack.7z (26.76 MB)
- PFCP Session Establishment DoS Attack.7z (19.35 MB)
- PFCP Session Deletion DoS Attack.7z (11.96 MB)
- Balanced TCP-IP Layer.7z (2.22 MB)
- Balanced PFCP APP Layer.7z (133.67 kB)
Documentation
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
5GC_PFCP_Intrusion_Detection_Dataset.pdf | 471.05 KB |
Comments
.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to inquire about the corresponding IP addresses associated with specific network functions, particularly SMF, UPF, and MSMF.
I find it perplexing that, upon examining the PCAP files "MSMF.pcap" and "UPF.pcap" from the "PFCP Session Deletion DoS Attack/20221310_PFCP_PFCP_Sess_Deletion_DoS_Test_07_4h" directory, I observed that the IP address sending the "pfcp_deletion_request" appears to be "172.21.0.107." However, the files "PFCP Session Deletion DoS Attack/20221310_PFCP_PFCP_Sess_Deletion_DoS_Test_07_4h/CiCFlowMeter Flows/240-sec-CSV/MSMF.csv" indicate that "172.21.0.120 -> 172.21.0.110" or "172.21.0.110 -> 172.21.0.120" are labeled as malicious.
I am keen to understand the rationale behind this discrepancy. Is the IP address of MSMF indeed "172.21.0.107"? If so, what is the reason behind labeling "172.21.0.120" as malicious in the CSV file generated by CiCFlowMeter?
Thank you for your assistance.