International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)

Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023, pp. 3449~3463

ISSN: 2088-8708, DOI: 10.11591/ijece.v13i3.pp3449-3463  3449

Machine learning for internet of things classification using

network traffic parameters

Loubna Elhaloui1, Sanaa El Filali1, El Habib Benlahmer1, Mohamed Tabaa2, Youness Tace1,2,
Nouha Rida3
1
Laboratory of Information Technologies and Modelling, Faculty of Sciences Ben M’sik, Hassan II University, Casablanca, Morocco
2
Pluridisciplinary Laboratory of Research and Innovation (LPRI), EMSI Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco
3
Department of Computer Science Engineering, Mohammadia School of Engineers (EMI), Rabat, Morocco

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: With the growth of the internet of things (IoT) smart objects, managing these
objects becomes a very important challenge, to know the total number of
Received May 24, 2022 interconnected objects on a heterogeneous network, and if they are
Revised Jul 26, 2022 functioning correctly; the use of IoT objects can have advantages in terms of
Accepted Aug 18, 2022 comfort, efficiency, and cost. In this context, the identification of IoT objects
is the first step to help owners manage them and ensure the security of their
IoT environments such as smart homes, smart buildings, or smart cities. In
Keywords: this paper, to meet the need for IoT object identification, we have deployed an
intelligent environment to collect all network traffic traces based on a diverse
Internet of things list of IoT in real-time conditions. In the exploratory phase of this traffic, we
Machine learning have developed learning models capable of identifying and classifying
Network traffic connected IoT objects in our environment. We have applied the six supervised
machine learning algorithms: support vector machine, decision tree (DT),
random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors, naive Bayes, and stochastic gradient
descent classifier. Finally, the experimental results indicate that the DT and
RF models proved to be the most effective and demonstrate an accuracy of
97.72% on the analysis of network traffic data and more particularly
information contained in network protocols. Most IoT objects are identified
and classified with an accuracy of 99.21%.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Loubna Elhaloui
Laboratory of Information Technology and Modeling, Faculty of Sciences Ben M’sik, Hassan II University
of Casablanca
BP 7955 Sidi Othman Casablanca, Morocco
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the telecommunications market is experiencing a significant boom in the use of smart
connected objects. This object is a hardware component equipped with a sensor that allows data to be generated,
exchanged, and consumed with minimal human intervention [1]. They have an increasingly important presence
in our daily life, whether in our ways of consuming or in our ways of producing. In particular, these smart
objects make it possible to create a mass of available data, thanks to the collection and processing of the traffic
sent and received by each connected object on an IoT network, to make our environment smarter, in particular,
smart homes, smart buildings, smart traffic, and smart cities [2].
In our previous work [3], we presented the IoT system model of a smart building, to allow users to
control, identify and access smart devices, thanks to the shared and exchanged data by different network
protocols. It, therefore, becomes necessary to be able to secure these various objects. The identification of the

Journal homepage: http://ijece.iaescore.com

3450  ISSN: 2088-8708

intelligent objects which evolves in a network constitutes is an essential component of the network management
tools because it provides important information allowing, in particular, to ensure the legitimacy of the traffic
exchanged.
Unfortunately, this modeling has demonstrated limitations related to the detection of physical objects
connected in a heterogeneous network. The main limitation is that all objects cannot be detected through a
single gateway due to a variety of IoT protocols. Recently, some researchers have presented techniques for
identifying IoT objects that rely on learning methods to characterize the attributes of various objects.
Sivanathan et al. [4] developed an algorithm for classifying IoT devices based on machine learning, which is
based on various network traffic characteristics to identify and classify the behavior of IoT objects on a
network. Ammar et al. [5] used supervised learning techniques based on flow attributes of traffic sent and
received by connected objects as well as textual data. Meidan et al. [6] are the first to demonstrate the feasibility
of identifying IoT objects based on network traces using machine learning. In the first step, a system that
analyzes TCP sessions is presented to differentiate network traffic generated by non-IoT and IoT objects, and
in the second step, their identification is proceed. Snehi and Bhandari [7] proposed a new framework for IoT
traffic classification based on Stack-Ensemble, by exploiting the behavioral attributes of real-time high-volume
IoT device traffic. Bezawada et al. [8] proposed a complementary identification system that leads to the
behavioral identification of IoT objects based on their activity within the network. In addition, Miettinen et al.
[9] presented a system for automatically identifying IoT objects and enforcing security that executes an
appropriate action plan to restrict or authorize their communications within a network. Sneh and Bhandari [10]
provided the taxonomy of the techno functional application domains of the IoT classification, by inferences on
the attributes of IoT traffic and the exploitation of an Australian dataset collected from 28 IoT objects.
In this paper, we present an implementation of a model for classifying connected objects by an
identification system through network protocols and traffic flow statistics, using the packet analysis tools
executed in the gateway (to see all incoming and outgoing traffic from connected objects). The discipline of
traffic flow analysis provides a means of collecting and exporting data that infer attributes of packets.
This article is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the problem of the work citing relevant
previous work. Presenting the literature concerning machine learning algorithms with the state of the art in
section 3. IoT traffic parameters in section 4, and in section 5 develop classification models to identify IoT
objects. The paper is concluded in section 6.

2. BACKGROUND
The growing number of devices connected to the internet capable of communicating with each other
continues to increase at a steady pace [2]. This trend tends to increase with the proliferation of actors, both
manufacturers and suppliers. The IoT based on traditional networks to which so-called “intelligent” objects are
connected, raises new issues around the detection of connected objects on heterogeneous networks involved in
intelligent environments, and also around the security [11] of these networks and the information passing
through them.
The identification of connected objects poses a great challenge given a large number of heterogeneous
protocols [12], the networks used and few consensual standards. Recent approaches to object identification
based on behavioral analysis of computing devices have emerged [13]. The basic idea is to scrutinize the traffic
crossing the network, using either active or passive measurement techniques, and to extract unique patterns
that are sufficiently discriminating in order to individually identify the objects present within our network.
There are a wide variety of methods for analyzing device traffic flow, that can be broadly classified into two
categories depending on the type of network surveillance considered: active surveillance or passive
surveillance.
The principle of active surveillance is to generate traffic in the network and observe any reactions to
the stimulus. As such, it creates additional traffic in the network. Conversely, in the case of passive surveillance,
it is an approach considered less intrusive, consisting in capturing the traffic crossing the network and studying
its properties at one or more points of the network. Usually, this approach requires software tools for traffic
capture or analysis like Wireshark [14], tcpdump, NetworkMiner, and WinDump.
Sivanathan et al. [15] have conducted tests to determine the feasibility of identifying the type of an
IoT device by probing its open ports. Nmap [16] is used to scan the ports of 19 IoT devices from their
test bench, in order to build a knowledge base of IoT device port number combinations thus forming their
signature. Snehi and Bhandari [7] have proposed a new Stack-Ensemble framework for IoT traffic
classification that characterizes traffic ingress based on statistical and functional attributes of IoT devices. This
proposed framework is capable of managing network traffic in real time. The authors have performed
a comparative analysis between the stack-Ensemble model and other classification models such as XGBoost
stacks, distributed random forest, gradient boosting machine, and general linear machine algorithms.

Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023: 3449-3463
Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708  3451

Through this analysis, their framework demonstrated the highest values of accuracy compared to other
classification models.
Miettinen et al. [9] proposed a system called IoT sentinel which identifies types of IoT devices and
executes an appropriate course of action to restrict or allow their communications within a network. So that
any device, or attack vectors, are not used to compromise the entire network. The system relies on the random
forest classification model to identify the type of object. According to the authors, two devices are said to be
of the same type if they share the same model and the same software version. When a new device is introduced
into the network for the first time, when a new MAC address is discovered, and then the latter begins its
installation and configuration phase (first moments of communication with the gateway). In this case, the
system initiates a packet capture process using tcpdump with filtering by the MAC address of the new device.
Bezawada et al. [8] propose a complementary system called IoTSense which performs behavioral identification
of IoT devices based on their activity within the network by analyzing ethernet, IP, and transport headers. Each
device is assigned a behavioral profile, so as to detect possible deviations from the initial behavior of the device,
due to malicious activities for example. The abbreviations used in the literature are defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Abbreviations used in the literature

Abbreviation Description
ARP Address resolution protocol
DNS Domain name system
DRF Distributed random forest
DT Decision tree
EMSI Moroccan School of Engineering Sciences
GBM Gradient boost machine
GLM Generalized linear model
HTTP Hypertext transfer protocol
HTTPS Hypertext transfer protocol secure
ICMP Internet control message protocol
IoT Internet of things
IP Internet protocol
KNN K-nearest neighbors
LPRI Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation Laboratory
MAC Media access control
MDNS Multicast domain name system
ML Machine learning
NB Naive Bayes
NTP Network time protocol
RF Random forest
SGDC Stochastic gradient descent classifier
SSDP Simple service discovery protocol
SSL Secure socket layer
SVM Support vector machine
TCP Transmission control protocol
TLS Transport layer security
UDP User datagram protocol

3. MACHINE LEARNING: STATE-OF-ART

Machine learning is part of one of the approaches to artificial intelligence [17], which consists of
creating algorithms capable of improving automatically with experience. It is increasingly integrated into
most of the technologies we use on a daily basis. The machine “learns” prior data and adapts its responses.
Utilizing machine learning involves using datasets of different sizes to identify correlations, similarities, and
differences [18].
Furthermore, ML makes extensive use of tools and concepts from statistics and is part of a larger
discipline called “data science”. There are three main types of ML, Supervised learning aims to establish rules
of behavior from a dataset containing examples of already labeled cases [19]. Unsupervised learning, unlike
supervised learning; unsupervised learning deals with the case where we only have the inputs, without first
having the outputs. The goal of unsupervised learning is to find hidden shapes in an unlabeled dataset [19].
Reinforcement learning is a type of ML in which a model has no training data at the start. The objective is for
an agent to evolve in an environment and learn from its own experience. For a reinforcement learning algorithm
to work, the environment in which it operates must be computable and have a function that evaluates the quality
of an agent [19].
The identification of IoT objects presented in this work is based on supervised learning. More
precisely, it is treated as a supervised classification problem. To this end, we focus on six classification
algorithms, their finer details on each model are given as follows.
Machine learning for Internet of things classification using network traffic parameters (Loubna Elhaloui)
3452  ISSN: 2088-8708

3.1. Support vector machine

SVM are algorithms that separate data based on classes or separators [20]. The SVM algorithm is
ideal for identifying simple classes which are separated by vectors called hyperplanes, and which distinguish
data based on training class labels. It is also possible to program the algorithm for nonlinear data, which cannot
be clearly separated by vectors. Principally, an SVM is all about finding the hyperplanes that best separate data
classes. The predicted classes in model SVM are made based on the side of the hyperplane where the data point
falls. SVM is a kind of supervised learning algorithm based on structural risk minimization [21]. As a popular
machine learning algorithm, SVM is widely used in many fields, such as finance and information retrieval, it
provides high accuracy on current and future data. The functional part of the solution to the SVM problem is
written as a linear combination of the kernel functions taken at the support points:

𝑓(𝑥 ) = ∑ 𝛼𝑖 𝑦𝑖 𝑘(𝑥, 𝑥𝑖 )
𝑖∈𝐴

where A denotes the set of active constraints and the αi the solutions of the following quadratic program:

1 𝑇
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑛 𝛼 𝐺𝛼 − ⅇ 𝑇 𝛼
2
𝛼∈ℝ
{
𝑎𝑣ⅇ𝑐 𝑦 𝑇 𝛼 = 0
0 ≤ 𝛼𝑖 ≤ 𝐶

where G is the matrix 𝑛 × 𝑛 with general term 𝐺𝑖𝑗 = 𝑦𝑖 𝑦𝑗 𝑘(𝑥𝑖 , 𝑥𝑗 ). The bias b to the value of the Lagrange
multiplier of the equality constraint at the optimum [22].

3.2. Decision tree

A DT is a supervised learning algorithm primarily used to graph data in branches to show possible
outcomes of various actions. Classification and prediction use response variables based on past decisions [23].
DT forms a flowchart like a tree, where each node represents the test on the attribute, and each branch denotes
the result of the test. The leaf node owns the class label. However, decision trees become difficult to read when
associated with large volumes of data and complex variables. A DT is a type of learning algorithm that can be
applied to many contexts: finance, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture.
In the case of classification, the classification and regression trees (CART) algorithm uses the Gini
diversity index to measure the classification error [24]. Practically, if we suppose that the class takes a value
in the set 1, 2, …, m, and if 𝑓𝑖 denotes the fraction of the elements of the set with label 𝑖 in the set, we have:
𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚

𝐼𝐺 (𝑓) = ∑ 𝑓𝑖 (1 − 𝑓𝑖 ) = ∑(𝑓𝑖 − 𝑓𝑖2 ) = ∑ 𝑓𝑖 − ∑ 𝑓𝑖2 = 1 − ∑ 𝑓𝑖2 𝑣

𝑖=1 𝑖=1 𝑖=1 𝑖=1 𝑖=1

3.3. Random forest

RF is a supervised learning technique that uses ensemble learning algorithms that combines an
aggregation technique, “Bagging”, and a particular decision tree induction technique. It creates a strong
classifier based on weak classifiers [25]. As the name suggests, RFs are formed by simply assembling multiple
decision trees, usually ranging from a few tens to thousands of trees. This bagging method forms patterns,
which are responsible for increased performance [21]. In addition, the random process in the construction of
the trees makes it possible to ensure a low correlation between them. RF is also known for its accuracy and
ability to process datasets composed of few observations and many features. It is used in crop classification
and prediction of crop yield corresponding to current climatic and biophysical changes [26].
Let ℎ̂(. , 𝜃1 ), … , ℎ̂(. , 𝜃𝑞 ) be a collection of tree predictors, with 𝜃1 , … , 𝜃𝑞 q random variables i.i.d.
independent of 𝐿𝑛 [27]. The RF predictor ℎ̂𝑅𝐹 is obtained by aggregating this collection of random trees as
follows.
𝑞
1
ℎ̂𝑅𝐹 (𝑥 ) = ∑ ℎ̂(𝑥1 , 𝜃𝑙 )
𝑞
𝑙=1

ℎ̂𝑅𝐹 (𝑥 ) = 𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∑ 𝕝ℎ̂(𝑥1,𝜃𝑙 ) = 𝑘 𝑎𝑣ⅇ𝑐 1 ≤ 𝑘 ≤ 𝐾

𝑙=1

Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023: 3449-3463
Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708  3453

3.4. K-nearest neighbor

KNN is a supervised learning method [28]. It is used for regression and classification. To make a
prediction, the KNN will be based on the datasets. The datasets are trained according to their class. The KNN
algorithm needs a distance calculation function between observations, it must be predicted to calculate the
distance with the nearest “K" points [21]. Using the formulas, there are several distance calculation methods
including, Minkowski distance, Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, and Hamming distance. We choose
the distance method according to the types of data we are handling. The choice of the highest number of K to
make a prediction with the KNN algorithm, varies depending on the dataset. In agriculture, the KNN is very
effective for the classification of different cereals-cultivars of cereals [21]. There are different distance
calculations used in the comparison step of the KNN algorithm such as:
a. Euclidean distance, which has been used in several identification systems based on the KNN algorithm
[29]. The Euclidean distance ⅆ𝐸 (𝑋, 𝑌) between the two vectors 𝑋 and 𝑌 is given by

ⅆ𝐸 (𝑋, 𝑌) = √∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖 )2
𝑖=1

b. Distance from city block, which is defined as follows.

𝑚

ⅆ𝐸 (𝑋, 𝑌) = ∑|𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖 |
𝑖=1

c. Cosine distance, which is also called angular distance and is derived from cosine similarity which measures
the angle between two vectors. This distance is defined as follows.

∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖 𝑌𝑖 1
ⅆ𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑋, 𝑌) = 1 −
𝑚 𝑚
√∑𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖2 √∑𝑖=1 𝑌𝑖2

d. Correlation distance, which is given by the following formula.

∑𝑚
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦
̅𝑖 ) (𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦̅𝑖 )
ⅆ𝑐𝑜𝑟 (𝑋, 𝑌) = 1 −
√∑𝑚
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦̅𝑖 )2 𝑚
√∑𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦̅𝑖 )2

3.5. Naive Bayes classifier

NB classifier is a supervised machine learning algorithm [30], it is a classification method that is
mainly based on Bayes' theorem. The latter is particularly useful for text classification issues. Bayes' theorem
is based on conditional probability theory [31]. The NB algorithm defines rules that allow it to classify a set of
observations, thus defining its classification rules from a dataset in order to apply them to the classification of
predictive data. Its main function is that it makes a strong priori hypothesis of the independence of the
characteristics considered, thus ignoring the correlations that may exist between them. NB algorithms are
widely used in the creation of Anti-Spam filters, recommendation systems, and digital marketing. The
probabilistic model for a classifier is the conditional model [32].

𝑝(𝐶 |𝐹1 , … , 𝐹𝑛 )

where C is a dependent class variable whose instances or classes are few, conditioned by serval characteristic
variables 𝐹1 , … , 𝐹𝑛 . Using Bayes’ theorem, we write:

𝑝(𝐶 )𝑝(𝐹1 , … , 𝐹𝑛 |𝐶)

𝑝(𝐶|𝐹1 , … , 𝐹𝑛 ) =
𝑝(𝐹1 , … , 𝐹𝑛 )

3.6. Stochastic gradient descent classifier

Stochastic gradient descent classifier (SGDC) is a supervised predictive learning algorithm [33],
which will allow to minimize the objective function which is written as a sum of differentiable functions. The
process is then performed iteratively on randomly drawn datasets. Each objective function minimized in this

Machine learning for Internet of things classification using network traffic parameters (Loubna Elhaloui)
3454  ISSN: 2088-8708

way is an approximation of the global objective function. The SGDC is widely used for training many families
of models in machine learning, including support vector machines, logistic regression and graphical models
[34]. In the SGD algorithm, the true value of the gradient of 𝑄(𝑤) is approximated by the gradient of a single
component of the sum.
𝑛
1
𝑄 (𝑤) = ∑ 𝑄𝑖 (𝑤)
𝑛
𝑖=1

In pseudo-code, the SGD method can be represented.

a. Choose an initial parameter vector w and a learning rate η.
b. Repeat until an approximate minimum is obtained: i) randomly shuffle the samples from the training set,
and ii) for 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑛 , do:
𝑛
𝜂
𝑤 ≔ 𝑤 − 𝜂∇𝑄(𝑤) = 𝑤 − ∑ ∇𝑄𝑖 (𝑤)
𝑛
𝑖=1

4. INTERNET OF THINGS TRAFFIC PARAMETERS

Understanding the nature and characteristics of the traffic generated by IoT objects is a crucial
step for implementing effective network policy and resource management in an IoT infrastructure.
However, studies focusing exclusively on characterizing IoT traffic are still in their infancy. A challenge that
Sivanathan et al. [35] attempted to address by empirically analyzing network traffic under conditions
simulating a smart city and smart campus environment in order to uncover the characteristics and behavioral
patterns of IoT devices.
To do this, they collected network traffic from a heterogeneous range of 30 devices, both 28 IoT
devices and 2 non-IoT devices, over a continuous period spanning several months. IoT traffic includes both
traffic generated by devices autonomously and traffic generated as a result of user interactions with devices.
The raw data collected consists of the TCP packet data header and payload information.
The authors are primarily interested in the distribution of 4 traffic flow characteristics: duration,
ratio, throughput, and the duration of inactivity of traffic flows. It is explained that for each of the
characteristics there are disparities that exhibit a distinct pattern. Sivanathan et al. [35] explained that each
of the IoT devices uses less than 10 distinct ports to communicate and that some devices use non-standard
port numbers. Moreover, some of them from the same manufacturer share some port numbers. Similarly, in
terms of DNS queries, certain domain names are invoked by devices from the same manufacturer. The
authors have also pointed out that with respect to the NTP protocol, some devices exhibit an identifiable
pattern at the NTP request sending interval. Finally, they noticed that 17 of the 28 IoT devices in the test
bed use TLS/SSL to communicate. Also, at the list of cipher suites [36] issued when establishing a TLS
connection.
In our object identification process based on machine learning techniques, we have conducted tests to
determine the feasibility of detecting smart objects by probing their network traffic. We have used Wireshark
[14] to scan our network traffic of 75 devices, in order to build a knowledge base of combinations of IP
addresses, MAC addresses, port numbers, and packet sizes. Firstly, we have analyzed the protocol sessions to
distinguish the network traffic generated by the IoT objects, and secondly, to proceed to their identification.
Our work describes an experimental environment in which network traffic data was collected from 75 objects
of 13 different types of devices. Over a period of several months, traffic capture was recorded as packets in
PCAP files. This collected data is then transformed into protocol sessions (ARP, SSDP, mDNS, DNS, NTP,
HTTP, HTTPS, TCP, and UDP), each session is identified by a unique triplet (source address, destination
address, type of protocol).
In this study, using supervised learning, classification models such as the RF model, DT, and KNN
model were used. to train a classifier that predicts the probability that a given session originates from an object
belonging to the set of known IoT objects. Initially, the results show an average rate of 89% of sessions
correctly classified as being part of our list of objects. Then to improve these results, we have put an additional
step in the classification process using the balancing on the network traffic coming from each connected object
in our environment. The result shows an improvement of around 8%. In this regard, we have chosen the
classification models of supervised machine learning, to proceed with the identification of IoT objects. Due to
the heterogeneity of the protocols and devices of the latter, the classification model which presents a rate of
97.72% is the decision tree.

Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023: 3449-3463
Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708  3455

5. DISCUSSION
A smart building uses technology to share information between different systems [37], it is happening
in the building in order to optimize the performance of the latter. This information is then used to automate
various processes, from heating to ventilation, or air conditioning for security. When we talk about smart
buildings, the general public thinks first of all, of a building that intelligently monitors its energy consumption
and is able to control this consumption, because it relies above all on connectivity. It is made up of connected
objects and applications with which the user interacts in real time. But the concept is much broader than that.
A smart building also has advantages in the areas of living comfort, health and safety, among others [38].
The most fundamental characteristics of the smart building are its systems that are connected to each
other. This system consists of smart objects, such as fire alarms, lighting, motion detectors, cameras; they are
all connected. The use of smart objects is an integral part of a smart building, and they play a very important
role in collecting data for collection and analysis by automated systems that can identify and control throughout
the building. In the present work, the IoT environment is discussed through the prism of connected objects
evolving in a similar intelligent building has been set up within the framework of the LPRI as shown in
Figure 1 at EMSI, one involving IoT devices in Table 2, gas sensors, cameras, smart speakers, temperature
sensors, IP phones, smart TVs, smartphones are connected to the internet.

Figure 1. Architecture of the IoT environment of the LPRI lab

Table 2. List of devices used in our lab

Devices Number of devices Number of flows generated
Smart TV (Samsung) 4 36793
Printer (Tokyo Electric CO., LTD) 3 37154
Smart Speaker (JBL) 4 36473
WebCam (Hangzhou Hikvision) 9 37429
Hotspot WIFI (Ubiquiti Access Point) 6 37940
Gas Sensor 4 36396
Temperature Sensor 3 33150
Smart Phone 6 32454
Laptop 6 36328
Personal Computer 10 37944
IP Phone (Aastra) 10 34048
Modulator DVB-C 4 37333
Tablet (Samsung) 6 34412

Machine learning for Internet of things classification using network traffic parameters (Loubna Elhaloui)
3456  ISSN: 2088-8708

On the other hand, studies focusing exclusively on characterizing IoT traffic are still in their infancy.
To do our job, we collected network traffic from a diverse range of devices, over a continuous period of time
spanning multiple times. IoT traffic includes both traffic generated by devices autonomously and traffic
generated as a result of user interactions with devices.
Figure 2 represents the operating principle of our system for identifying IoT objects in our
environment, starting from the capture of network traffic to the development of classification and prediction
models. Firstly, this system collects the network traffic from the start of the object to be identified. Then, a step
of extracting parameters characterizing the different classes is carried out from the traces of IoT traffic. The
next step is to classify all the extracted parameters to obtain the identity of the considered object using one or
more classifiers such as SVM, KNN, RF, and DT. This classification takes into account the models of the
different classes, previously trained in a phase called the learning phase.

Figure 2. General view of the operation of an identification system

The raw data collected consists of the TCP packet data header and payload information. We are first
interested in the distribution of traffic flow characteristics such as throughput, duration, and idle time of traffic
flows. We will explain that for each of the characteristics where we find disparities that exhibit a distinct pattern.
Capturing network traffic is a relatively easy process that can be accomplished by placing a tool such
as Wireshark or t-shark on a host through which network traffic is routed. In our case, all network traffic
entering and leaving the local network was observed and collected manually using the Wireshark tool as in
Figure 3. During this observation phase, all traces were collected several times from a computer (Microsoft
Windows 10) connected to the same network. The distribution of packet volume per IoT object generally shows
variations in magnitude when there are no interactions with third parties. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of
packets of IoT objects in our lab. In particular, we can notice the absence of network activity with regard to the
gas sensor and the temperature sensor. However, if one interacts with these latter sensors, then their network
activity is multiplied by a variable factor.
We have described the data collection process. Once we have all the traces, we need to convert them
into a format usable by the machine learning algorithms. To do this, a python script has been implemented to
allow the extraction of the characteristics from the network flow. A network stream can be defined as one or
more packets traveling between two computer addresses using a particular protocol (TCP, UDP, ICMP, ...).
Most IoT objects regularly exchange traffic with servers that are often identifiable by their domain
names corresponding to their manufacturers/suppliers. In addition, these exchanges can occur periodically,
such as the use of the NTP protocol for time-stamping services, or DNS requests at the initiative of IoT objects.
Most IoT objects exhibit a recognizable pattern in the use of certain TCP/IP protocols [35].
After the stage of feature extraction based on PCAP files and their transformation into a dataset, this
was processed using the Scikit-learn library to develop models capable of predicting/identifying the type of

Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023: 3449-3463
Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708  3457

IoT objects using the machine learning technique. There are multiple different classification algorithms suitable
for a problem like this. Many of them inherently support multiclass data (e.g., NB, decision trees, nearest-K),
and for others like the SVM which only supports two classes by definition, there are still several methods for
adapting SVMs to multiclass problems [39].

Figure 3. Wireshark capture

Packets/1 min

Temps (s)

15

12.5

10
Packets/1 min

7.5

2.5

Temps (s)

Figure 4. Packet distribution of IoT objects in 1-minute intervals

Machine learning for Internet of things classification using network traffic parameters (Loubna Elhaloui)
3458  ISSN: 2088-8708

Scikit-learn includes a wide range of supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms. In
this work, six different classification algorithms were used: RF, SVM, KNN, SGDC, DT, and NB as in
Figure 5. To do this, the algorithms were executed in a web application called Jupyter Notebook [40] chosen
for its intelligible interface. As mentioned above, the approach proposed in this paper is based on multiclass
supervised learning in the sense that we treat the identification of IoT objects as a supervised classification
problem. Our dataset contains a set of values where each value is associated with a feature and an observation.

Figure 5. Performance of classification models

Our dataset includes 467,854 observations. It was divided into two subsets (training and test set)
during the supervised learning phase. Once the models were trained on the training set, we checked their
performance on the test set using metrics from the Scikit-learn library.
Just like on our own dataset, we trained the algorithms on the first subset of data and then evaluated
their performance on the second. As a result, the DT and RF models proved to be the most efficient in view of
the metric results shown in Figure 4. In addition, their learning time is quite fast compared to others.
To evaluate the performance of the classification of IoT objects, Figures 6 and 7 show the resulting
confusion matrices of the two learning algorithms, respectively the decision tree model and the Random Forest
model, of this classification. Each given cell of the confusion matrix indicates the precision that receives a
positive output from the model in the corresponding row. From the raw outputs of Figures 6 and 7, it can be
seen that these two matrices have almost the same values, and all models of the objects correctly detect most
instances of their own class, with the exception of objects like hotspot Wi-Fi which have a true positive rate of
less than 94%. On the other hand, the other objects show more than 95% up to 100% of correct detection,
which is to say true positives, for example, the models of smart TV (Samsung), tablet, and laptop objects have
the greatest confidence. At the same time, one can also see the other models incorrectly detecting instances of
objects from other classes, i.e., false positives, as shown by the non-diagonal elements in the confusion matrices.
The hotspot Wi-Fi object is more impacted compared to other objects by experiencing a drop in its
true positive rate. Focusing on the models of the objects like gas sensor and temperature sensor, we found that
their clusters overlapped with each other and with other IoT objects by a certain number of clusters, and
therefore they resulted in false positives. We do not forget that these overlaps in the models of IoT objects are
expected, especially when we want to classify a large number of different objects. IoT traffic overlaps can be
due to various reasons such as actions triggered by events, or the use of common services, such as objects from
the same manufacturer.
The final discussion of model performance concerns the details of the critical performance metric
(accuracy). Table 3 shows the comparative analysis of the accuracy of IoT objects for the following models
DT, RF, and KNN, the higher values of accuracy complement the overall accuracy of each model. Table 4
presents the comparison of the proposed work with state-of-art in the field of IoT classification.

Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023: 3449-3463
Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708  3459

Figure 6. Decision tree model confusion matrix

Figure 7. Random forest model confusion matrix

Machine learning for Internet of things classification using network traffic parameters (Loubna Elhaloui)
3460  ISSN: 2088-8708

Table 3. Comparison of learning model performance metrics

Devices Decision Tree Random Forest K-Nearest Neighbors
Smart TV (Samsung) 1 1 0.988317757
Smart Speaker (JBL) 0.990300317 0.982652490 0.996662340
Temperature Sensor 0.970267592 0.982652490 0.996662340
Smart Phone 0.979044933 0.979044933 0.953516820
Laptop 1 1 1
IP Phone (Aastra) 0.995714007 0.994350282 1
Modulator DVB-C 0.996612587 0.996612587 1
Tablet (Samsung) 0.994969040 0.995743034 1

Table 4. Comparison of the state of the art in the field of IoT classification
References Objective Methods Testbed Configuration Performance
[4] Classifying IoT NB, RF Smart Lab Port Numbers: Accuracy: 92.13%
devices environment Domain Names: Accuracy: 79.48%
(28 devices) Cipher Suite: Accuracy: 36.15%
The final accuracy: 99.88%
[5] Classification of DT, SVM, NB, RF, 33 connected objects Traffic flow attributes: accuracy
Connected objects KNN 72%
Text attributes: accuracy 93%
The accuracy of the DT: 99%
The accuracy of the SVM: 88%
The accuracy of the NB: 98%
The accuracy of the KNN: 94%
The accuracy of the RF: 94%
[6] Classify IoT devices GBM, eXtreme 9 IoT devices The total accuracy of the
Gradient Boosting different models used: 99.281%
(XGB), RF
[7] IoT/Non-IoT Stack-Ensemble, Packet captures from The Stack-Ensemble model
Classification in real- DRF, XGB, GBM, [4] outperformed with an accuracy
time GLM of 99.94%
[8] Fingerprint KNN, DT, GBM 14 IoT devices Not specified
Classification
[9] Fingerprint RF 27 devices Accuracy: 95%
Classification
[41] IoT Classification DT Smart Home setup Accuracy: 97%
(5 IoT devices)
Our IoT Classification in DT, RF, NB, KNN 75 IoT devices from The accuracy of the DT: 97.72%
proposed real-time Smart environment The accuracy of the RF: 97.65%
work (living Lab LPRI in The accuracy of the KNN: 95.15%
EMSI) The accuracy of the NB: 85.09
The final accuracy: 99.21% (80% in
all IoT objects)

6. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

The main objective of this work was to propose a method for identifying IoT objects by analyzing
network traffic data. These were collected and analyzed manually using the Wireshark tool to extract the
characteristics of the network flow, which allows us to build our base of exploitable characteristics by learning
algorithms. To this end, an infrastructure of connected objects simulating an intelligent environment has been
deployed to collect network traffic in real conditions of use.
During the exploratory phase of network traffic, we have developed learning models capable of
classifying and identifying connected IoT objects in our work environment. Regarding supervised learning, we
subjected our dataset to six different classification algorithms (SVM, KNN, DT, RF, NB, and SGDC). As a
result, the DT and RF models proved to be the most efficient in view of the metric results, they achieved
97.72% accuracy in identifying and classifying each IoT object from the IoT dataset (most IoT objects are
identified and classified with an accuracy of 99.21%).
Although this approach makes it easier for us to identify and detect smart objects in our environment,
it lacks the security of these objects that are connected and interconnected to the internet with its high
cybersecurity risk in IoT networks. Currently, the smart environment has increasingly become a target for
emerging cyberattacks that will impact user privacy and potential security. In future work, we will study the
securing chapter of the IoT, which is a major and important challenge in our daily life, to define the main
security problems caused by IoT objects.

Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023: 3449-3463
Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708  3461

REFERENCES
[1] T. Sapkta, “A general survey on internet of things (IoT),” Indian Journal of Natural Sciences, vol. 12, no. 66, pp. 32077–32081,
2021.
[2] M. Lombardi, F. Pascale, and D. Santaniello, “Internet of things: A general overview between architectures, protocols and
applications,” Information, vol. 12, no. 2, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/info12020087.
[3] L. Elhaloui, S. Elfilali, M. Tabaa, and E. H. Benlahmer, “Toward a monitoring system based on IoT devices for smart buildings,”
in Advances on Smart and Soft Computing, 2021, pp. 285–293. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-6048-4_25.
[4] A. Sivanathan et al., “Classifying IoT devices in smart environments using network traffic characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1745–1759, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TMC.2018.2866249.
[5] N. Ammar, L. Noirie, and S. Tixeuil, “ Improved identification of the type of connected objects by supervised classification,” (In
French), CORES2019-Rencontres Francophones sur la Conception de Protocoles, l’Évaluation de Performance et
l’Expérimentation des Réseaux de Communication., pp. 1–5, 2019.
[6] Y. Meidan et al., “ProfilIoT: a machine learning approach for IoT device identification based on network traffic analysis,” in
Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing, Apr. 2017, pp. 506–509. doi: 10.1145/3019612.3019878.
[7] M. Snehi and A. Bhandari, “A novel distributed stack ensembled meta-learning-based optimized classification framework for real-
time prolific IoT traffic streams,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 9907–9930, Aug. 2022, doi:
10.1007/s13369-021-06472-z.
[8] B. Bezawada, M. Bachani, J. Peterson, H. Shirazi, I. Ray, and I. Ray, “Behavioral fingerprinting of IoT devices,” in Proceedings of
the 2018 Workshop on Attacks and Solutions in Hardware Security, Jan. 2018, pp. 41–50. doi: 10.1145/3266444.3266452.
[9] M. Miettinen, S. Marchal, I. Hafeez, N. Asokan, A.-R. Sadeghi, and S. Tarkoma, “IoT SENTINEL: Automated device-type
identification for security enforcement in IoT,” in 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems
(ICDCS), Jun. 2017, pp. 2177–2184. doi: 10.1109/ICDCS.2017.283.
[10] M. Sneh and A. Bhandari, “Empirical investigation of IoT traffic in smart environments: characteristics, research gaps and
recommendations,” in 2021 10th International Conference on System Modeling & Advancement in Research Trends (SMART), Dec.
2021, pp. 176–181. doi: 10.1109/SMART52563.2021.9676298.
[11] S. Naik and V. Maral, “Cyber security — IoT,” in 2017 2nd IEEE International Conference on Recent Trends in Electronics,
Information & Communication Technology (RTEICT), May 2017, pp. 764–767. doi: 10.1109/RTEICT.2017.8256700.
[12] L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, “Understanding the internet of things: definition, potentials, and societal role of a fast evolving
paradigm,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 56, pp. 122–140, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.12.004.
[13] P. Krishnan, K. Jain, K. Achuthan, and R. Buyya, “Software-defined security-by-contract for blockchain-enabled MUD-aware
industrial IoT edge networks,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 7068–7076, Oct. 2022, doi:
10.1109/TII.2021.3084341.
[14] “Wireshark.” https://www.wireshark.org (accessed May 17, 2021).
[15] A. Sivanathan, H. H. Gharakheili, and V. Sivaraman, “Can we classify an IoT device using TCP port scan?,” in 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Information and Automation for Sustainability (ICIAfS), Dec. 2018, pp. 1–4. doi:
10.1109/ICIAFS.2018.8913346.
[16] “Nmap.” https://nmap.org/ (accessed May 17, 2021).
[17] E. Blasch et al., “Machine learning/artificial intelligence for sensor data fusion–opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Aerospace and
Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 80–93, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1109/MAES.2020.3049030.
[18] M. Aria, C. Cuccurullo, and A. Gnasso, “A comparison among interpretative proposals for Random Forests,” Machine Learning
with Applications, vol. 6, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100094.
[19] B. Mahesh, “Machine learning algorithms -A review,” International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 381–386, 2020, doi: 10.21275/ART20203995.
[20] U. Barman and R. D. Choudhury, “Soil texture classification using multi class support vector machine,” Information Processing in
Agriculture, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 318–332, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.inpa.2019.08.001.
[21] M. Waleed, T.-W. Um, T. Kamal, and S. M. Usman, “Classification of agriculture farm machinery using machine learning and
internet of things,” Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 3, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3390/sym13030403.
[22] G. Lebrun, C. Charrier, O. Lezoray, and H. Cardot, “Construction of efficient and low-complexity decision functions with SVMs,”
(In French), in RJCIA, 2005, pp. 1–14.
[23] Q. Dai, C. Zhang, and H. Wu, “Research of decision tree classification algorithm in data mining,” International Journal of Database
Theory and Application, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1–8, May 2016, doi: 10.14257/ijdta.2016.9.5.01.
[24] N. Ben Amor, S. Benferhat, and Z. Elouedi, “Naive Bayesian networks and decision trees in intrusion detection systems,”(In
French), TSI-Technique et Science Informatiques, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 167–196, 2006.
[25] J. Ali, R. Khan, N. Ahmad, and I. Maqsood, “Random forests and decision trees,” IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science
Issues, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 272–278, 2012.
[26] A. O. Ok, O. Akar, and O. Gungor, “Evaluation of random forest method for agricultural crop classification,” European Journal of
Remote Sensing, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 421–432, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.5721/EuJRS20124535.
[27] D. Zhao et al., “Using random forest for the risk assessment of coal-floor water inrush in Panjiayao Coal Mine, northern China,”
Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 2327–2340, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10040-018-1767-5.
[28] G. Guo, H. Wang, D. Bell, Y. Bi, and K. Greer, “KNN model-based approach in classification,” in OTM 2003: On The Move to
Meaningful Internet Systems 2003: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, 2003, pp. 986–996. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-39964-3_62.
[29] H. A. Abu Alfeilat et al., “Effects of distance measure choice on K-nearest neighbor classifier performance: A review,” Big Data,
vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 221–248, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1089/big.2018.0175.
[30] R. Mirtorabi, “Automating water capital activities using Naïve Bayes classifier with supervised learning algorithm,” University of
Waterloo, 2021.
[31] G. Gültekin and O. Bayat, “A Naïve Bayes prediction model on location-based recommendation by integrating multi-dimensional
contextual information,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 6957–6978, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11042-021-
11676-4.
[32] A. Salvail-Berard, “Les arbres de décision hybrides,” Cahier de Mathématique de l’Université de Sherbrooke, vol. 2, pp. 34–58,
2012.
[33] T. Zhang, “Solving large scale linear prediction problems using stochastic gradient descent algorithms,” in Proceedings of the
twenty-first international conference on Machine learning, 2004, pp. 116–123.
[34] B. Gaye, D. Zhang, and A. Wulamu, “Sentiment classification for employees reviews using regression vector- stochastic gradient
descent classifier (RV-SGDC),” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 7, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.712.

Machine learning for Internet of things classification using network traffic parameters (Loubna Elhaloui)
3462  ISSN: 2088-8708

[35] A. Sivanathan et al., “Characterizing and classifying IoT traffic in smart cities and campuses,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on
Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), May 2017, pp. 559–564. doi: 10.1109/INFCOMW.2017.8116438.
[36] O. Cheikhrouhou, M. B. Jemaa, and M. Laurent-Maknavicius, “New authentication method EAP-EHash,” (In French), CFIP
2006/Francophone Conference on Protocol Engineering. Hermes, 2006.
[37] A. Latifah, S. H. Supangkat, and A. Ramelan, “Smart building: A literature review,” in 2020 International Conference on ICT for
Smart Society (ICISS), Nov. 2020, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICISS50791.2020.9307552.
[38] S. J. Rashid, A. M. Alkababji, and A. M. Khidhir, “Communication and network technologies of IoT in smart building: A survey,”
NTU Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2021.
[39] R. Sangeetha and B. Kalpana, “Identifying efficient kernel function in multiclass support vector machines,” International Journal
of Computer Applications, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 18–23, 2011.
[40] “Jupyter notebook.” https://jupyter.org/ (accessed Oct. 20, 2021).
[41] N. Ammar, L. Noirie, and S. Tixeuil, “Autonomous identification of IoT device types based on a supervised classification,” in ICC
2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Jun. 2020, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICC40277.2020.9148821.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Loubna Elhaloui received a specialized master's degree in computer networks

and systems from the Faculty of Sciences Ben M’sik, Hassan II University of Casablanca,
Morocco. She is a teacher and researcher in computer networks at the EMSI Rabat, Morocco.
she is a member of the laboratory of information technologies and modeling. She can be
contacted at [email protected].

Sanaa El Filali is currently a full professor of computer science in the Department

of Mathematics and Computer Science at Faculty of Science Ben M’Sik, Hassan II University
of Casablanca. She received her Ph.D. in computer science from the Faculty of Science Ben
M’sik in 2006. Her research interests include computer training, the Internet of things, and
information processing. She can be contacted at [email protected].

El Habib Benlahmer is currently a full professor of computer science in the

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at Faculty of Science Ben M’Sik, Hassan
II University of Casablanca since 2008. He received his Ph.D. in computer science from
ENSIAS in 2007. His research interests span both web semantic, NLP, mobile platforms, and
data science. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Mohamed Tabaa received a degree of engineer in telecommunication and

networking from the Moroccan school of engineering science of Casablanca, Morocco in
2011. He received a master's in radiocommunication, and embedded electronic systems
from University of Paul Verlaine of Metz, France. He received his Ph.D. and H.D.R.
diploma in electronics systems from University of Lorraine Metz, France in 2014 and 2020
respectively. Since 2015, he has been the Director of the LPRI private Laboratory attached to
the EMSI. His research interests include an array of digital signal processing for wireless
communications, IoT, digitalization, renewable energy, and embedded systems. He has served
on the organizing committees and technical program committees of several international
conferences, including IEEE International Conference on Microelectronics ICM, Innovation
and New Trends in Information Systems INTIS, IEEE Renewable Energies, Power Systems
and Green Inclusive Economy REPS & GIE, IEEE International Conference on Control and
Fault-Tolerant Systems SysToL. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2023: 3449-3463
Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708  3463

Youness Tace holds a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and computer science, a

master’s in big data & data science (DSBD). He is a doctoral student in science and technology
and has acquired several certificates and professional skills. He currently teaches at the
Moroccan School of Engineering Sciences (EMSI) and did a few visits to Ben M'Sik Faculty
of Sciences to supervise and teach master’s students. He is a member of the Center for
Innovation and Technology Transfer (CITT). He has a penchant for the fields of the Internet
of things, artificial intelligence, and web development. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Nouha Rida got her Ph.D. degree in computer science from the University
Mohamed V of Rabat- Morocco. She is a full professor in Computer Science at the EMSI
Rabat, Morocco. She is a member of the smartiLab, and she is a member of a Network and
Intelligent Systems Group and has many research contributions. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Machine learning for Internet of things classification using network traffic parameters (Loubna Elhaloui)