A Survey on Proactive Security in Software Defined Networks Using a Convolutional Neural Network-Based Early Warning System

Abstract

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) centralizes control and improves programmability, but this also increases vulnerability to large-scale threats such as DDoS. Conventional intrusion detection systems often fail in this context due to static rules and high false alarms. Recent studies apply deep learning for anomaly detection, with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) offering faster training and lower latency than recurrent or hybrid models. This survey reviews CNN-based IDS approaches and compares them with alternatives like DNNs [1], GRU-RNNs [2], and SAE-based models [3]. Our analysis highlights CNNs’ faster convergence and adaptability for real-time detection, while also identifying the challenges of scalability, data diversity, and deployment overhead. The paper concludes by outlining open research directions toward intelligent, lightweight, and automated IDS solutions for strengthening SDN environments.

Introduction

Modern network environments are becoming increasingly complex and dynamic. Software-Defined Networking (SDN) offers a solution through centralized, programmable network control by separating the control plane from the data plane. While this improves management, it creates a single point of failure, making SDNs vulnerable to:

• DDoS attacks

• Flow table exhaustion

• Zero-day attacks

• Low-rate stealthy intrusions

Conventional Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) face limitations:

• Signature-based IDS: Can't detect unknown attacks

• Anomaly-based IDS: Prone to high false positives, dependent on handcrafted features

2. Deep Learning for SDN Security

To overcome these challenges, Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) methods have been adopted in IDS design. These approaches can learn complex traffic patterns and offer:

• Higher detection accuracy

• Better generalization for unknown threats

However, many DL models (especially RNNs, GRUs, and hybrid models) require:

• High computational resources

• Long training times

• Making them less ideal for real-time SDN deployment

3. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) in IDS for SDN

• CNNs, originally developed for image classification, are now used for SDN traffic analysis.

• They extract spatial patterns from flow-based data and offer:

  • Faster training and inference

  • Lower complexity than recurrent models

• CNNs are thus a promising solution for lightweight and scalable IDS in SDNs

4. Adversary Model

Attackers in SDNs:

• Exploit the central controller

• Use packet flooding, flow saturation, or zero-day attacks

• May mimic legitimate traffic to evade detection

An effective IDS must:

• Detect a wide range of attack types

• Adapt to evolving patterns

• Respond in near-real time

5. Literature Survey (Key Studies)

6. Methodology

A. Data & Representation

• Common datasets: NSL-KDD, Mininet-generated traffic

• Features include: flow duration, packet/byte counts

• Some models use all 41 features, others select 6–12 key attributes for efficiency

B. Preprocessing

• Normalization (min–max, z-score)

• Encoding (one-hot, label encoding)

• Class balancing (oversampling/undersampling)

• Feature selection using:

  • ANOVA F-test

  • Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE)

These techniques reduce training time and improve model accuracy.

Conclusion

Securing Software Defined Networks (SDNs) against flow-based intrusions has become increasingly important due to their centralized and programmable nature. Deep learning approaches, including DNNs, GRUs, SAEs, and hybrid models, have shown promise in detecting a wide range of threats by learning complex traffic patterns. However, these models often face challenges in terms of computational complexity, scalability, and real-time responsiveness. Recent interest in Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) reflects a shift toward more efficient, parallelizable architecture suitable for real-time deployment. While promising, further work is needed to enhance model robustness, interpretability, and adaptability to evolving attack patterns. Future efforts should also focus on improving dataset quality, reducing overhead, and ensuring seamless integration within SDN environment.

References

[1] T. A. Tang, L. Mhamdi, D. McLernon, S. A. R. Zaidi, and M. Ghogho, “Deep learning approach for Network Intrusion Detection in Software Defined Networking,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Wireless Networks and Mobile Communications (WINCOM), 2016, pp. 258–263, doi: 10.1109/WINCOM.2016.7777224. [2] T. A. Tang, L. Mhamdi, D. McLernon, S. A. R. Zaidi, and M. Ghogho, “Deep Recurrent Neural Network for Intrusion Detection in SDN-based Networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Advanced Networks and Telecomm. Systems (ANTS), 2018, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/ANTS.2018.8710098. [3] T. A. Nguyen and G. Kim, “A Deep Learning-Based DDoS Detection System in Software-Defined Networking,” in Proc. 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Information Networking (ICOIN), 2018, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/ICOIN.2018.8343163. [4] A. Abubakar and B. Pranggono, “Machine Learning Based Intrusion Detection System for Software Defined Networks,” in Proc. 2017 Seventh Int. Conf. Emerging Security Technologies (EST), 2017, pp. 138–143, doi: 10.1109/EST.2017.8090413. [5] T. A. Nguyen, N. D. Nguyen, and D. Tran, “Flow-Based Anomaly Detection in Software-Defined Networking Using Hybrid Deep Learning Model,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 32536–32545, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2973560. [6] J. Kim, H. Kim, M. Shim, and E. Choi, ‘‘CNN-based network intrusion detection against denial-of-service attacks,’ Electronics, vol. 9, p. 916, Jun. 2020. [7] R. Palanikumar and K. Ramasamy, ‘‘Software defined network based self diagnosing faulty node detection scheme for surveillance applications,’’ Compute. Commun., vol. 152, pp. 333–337, Feb. 2020. [8] Y. Goto, B. Ng, W. K. G. Seah, and Y. Takahashi, ‘‘Queueing analysis of software defined network with realistic OpenFlow–based switch model,’’ Compute. Netw., vol. 164, Dec. 2019, Art. no. 106892. [9] A. Shaghaghi, M. A. Kaafar, R. Buyya, and S. Jha, ‘‘Software-defined network (SDN) data plane security: Issues, solutions, and future directions,’’ in Handbook of Computer Networks and Cyber Security, B. Gupta, G. Perez, D. Agrawal, and D. Gupta, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-22277-2_14. [10] K. Bhushan and B. B. Gupta, ‘‘Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack mitigation in software defined network (SDN)-based cloud computing environment,’’ J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1985–1997, May 2019. [11] I. Ahmad, S. Namal, M. Ylianttila, and A. Gurtov, ‘‘Security in software defined networks: A survey,’’ IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2317–2346, 4th Quart., 2015. [12] H. Wang and W. Li, ‘‘DDosTC: A transformer-based network attack detection hybrid mechanism in SDN,’’ Sensors, vol. 21, no. 15, p. 5047, Jul. 2021. [13] S. Boukria and M. Guerroumi, ‘‘Intrusion detection system for SDN network using deep learning approach,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Theor. Applicative Aspects Comput. Sci. (ICTAACS), Dec. 2019, pp. 1–6.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Shwetha A B, Likhitha V, Hithaishi G, Bindushree E, Nanditha R. 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.