Attack detection is usually approached as a classification problem. However, standard classification tools often perform poorly because an adaptive attacker can shape his attacks in response to the algorithm. This has led to the recent interest in developing methods for adversarial classification, but to the best of our knowledge, there have been very few prior studies that take into account the attacker's tradeoff between adapting to the classifier being used against him with his desire to maintain the efficacy of his attack. Including this effect is key to derive solutions that perform well in practice. In this investigation we model the interaction as a game between a defender who chooses a classifier to distinguish between attacks and normal behavior based on a set of observed features and an attacker who chooses his attack features (class 1 data). Normal behavior (class 0 data) is random and exogenous. The attacker's objective balances the benefit from attacks and the cost of being detected while the defender's objective balances the benefit of a correct attack detection and the cost of false alarm. We provide an efficient algorithm to compute all Nash equilibria and a compact characterization of the possible forms of a Nash equilibrium that reveals intuitive messages on how to perform classification in the presence of an attacker. We also explore qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of the non-attacker and underlying parameters on the equilibrium strategies.
 Due to the dynamic, distributed, and heterogeneous nature of today's networks, intrusion detection systems (IDSs) have become a necessary addition to the security infrastructure and are widely deployed as a complementary line of defense to classical security approaches. In this paper, we address the intrusion detection problem in heterogeneous networks consisting of nodes with different noncorrelated security assets. In our study, two crucial questions are: What are the expected behaviors of rational attackers? What is the optimal strategy of the defenders (IDSs)? We answer the questions by formulating the network intrusion detection as a noncooperative game and performing an in-depth analysis on the Nash equilibrium and the engineering implications behind. Based on our game theoretical analysis, we derive the expected behaviors of rational attackers, the minimum monitor resource requirement, and the optimal strategy of the defenders. We then provide guidelines for IDS design and deployment. We also show how our game theoretical framework can be applied to configure the intrusion detection strategies in realistic scenarios via a case study. Finally, we evaluate the proposed game theoretical framework via simulations. The simulation results show both the correctness of the analytical results and the effectiveness of the proposed guidelines. There has been significant recent interest in game-theoretic approaches to security, with much of the recent research focused on utilizing the leader-follower Stackelberg game model. Among the major applications are the ARMOR program deployed at LAX Airport and the IRIS program in use by the US Federal Air Marshals (FAMS). The foundational assumption for using Stackelberg games is that security forces (leaders), acting first, commit to a randomized strategy; while their adversaries (followers) choose their best response after surveillance of this randomized strategy. Yet, in many situations, a leader may face uncertainty about the follower's surveillance capability. Previous work fails to address how a leader should compute her strategy given such uncertainty. We provide five contributions in the context of a general class of security games. First, we show that the Nash equilibria in security games are interchangeable, thus alleviating the equilibrium selection problem. Second, under a natural restriction on security games, any Stackelberg strategy is also a Nash equilibrium strategy; and furthermore, the solution is unique in a class of security games of which ARMOR is a key exemplar. Third, when faced with a follower that can attack multiple targets, many of these properties no longer hold. Fourth, we show experimentally that in most (but not all) games where the restriction does not hold, the Stackelberg strategy is still a Nash equilibrium strategy, but this is no longer true when the attacker can attack multiple targets. Finally, as a possible direction for future research, we propose an extensive-form game model that makes the defender's uncertainty about the attacker's ability to observe explicit.