MACHINE LEARNING APPLICATION FOR INTELLIGENT THREAT CLASSIFICATION IN CLOUDFLARE BOT MANAGEMENT FIREWALL LOGS OF UNIVERSITY DIGITAL EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE
PDF

Keywords

university network security
ensemble machine learning
WAF threat detection
firewall log analysis
educational ICT infrastructure

How to Cite

[1]
A. Gayibov, V. . Gasimov, I. . Islamov, J. Mammadov, and S. . Gayibov, “MACHINE LEARNING APPLICATION FOR INTELLIGENT THREAT CLASSIFICATION IN CLOUDFLARE BOT MANAGEMENT FIREWALL LOGS OF UNIVERSITY DIGITAL EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE”, ITLT, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 186–201, Sep. 2026, doi: 10.33407/itlt.v114i4.6687.

Abstract

The object of this study is the automated classification of Cloudflare Bot Management (CBM) firewall log records collected from a university web application. The study addresses the problem of distinguishing potentially malicious requests from legitimate academic traffic in the digital educational infrastructure of a higher education institution. Static threshold-based firewall rules are often insufficient for analyzing multidimensional security indicators, including WAF machine-learning attack scores, bot-related signals, TLS fingerprint information, and request-level metadata. A comparative machine-learning framework was developed using six supervised classifiers: Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB). The models were trained and evaluated on 24 engineered features extracted from 500 CBM log entries using a stratified 80/20 train-test split and 5-fold cross-validation. RF, GB, and DT achieved 100% test accuracy on the constructed dataset, while SVM, KNN, and GNB achieved 96.00%, 93.00%, and 44.00%, respectively. These results should be interpreted in the context of the proposed labelling procedure, because the target variable was derived from WAF score aggregation and the same group of WAF indicators was also used among the input features. Feature importance analysis showed that WAF machine-learning attack scores formed the dominant group of classification indicators. The Decision Tree model produced an interpretable threshold rule based on the normalized “wafMlAttackScore”. This rule is not presented as a fully deployed production firewall policy, but as a candidate rule that can support further expert validation and configuration of university WAF security policies. The proposed approach therefore contributes to the interpretation and secondary classification of CBM firewall logs in educational ICT security management.

PDF

References

[1] A. L. Buczak and E. Guven, "A survey of data mining and machine learning methods for cyber security intrusion detection," IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1153-1176, 2016. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2015.2494502. (in English)

[2] Verizon, "2023 Data Breach Investigations Report," Verizon Communications Inc., 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/dbir/ (in English)

[3] Y. Xin, L. Kong, Z. Liu, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Zhu, M. Gao, H. Hou, and C. Wang, "Machine learning and deep learning methods for cybersecurity," IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 35365-35381, 2018. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2836950. (in English)

[4] K. Scarfone and P. Mell, "Guide to intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDPS)," NIST Special Publication 800-94, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2007. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-94. (in English)

[5] P. A. A. Resende and A. C. Drummond, "A survey of random forest based methods for intrusion detection systems," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1-36, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3178582. (in English)

[6] Z. Ahmad, A. Shahid Khan, C. Wai Shiang, J. Abdullah, and F. Ahmad, "Network intrusion detection system: A systematic study of machine learning and deep learning approaches," Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 32, no. 1, e4150, 2021. doi: 10.1002/ett.4150. (in English)

[7] X. Gao, C. Shan, C. Hu, Z. Niu, and Z. Liu, "An adaptive ensemble machine learning model for intrusion detection," IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 82512-82521, 2019. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2923640. (in English)

[8] A. Khraisat, I. Gondal, P. Vamplew, and J. Kamruzzaman, "Survey of intrusion detection systems: Techniques, datasets and challenges," Cybersecurity, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-22, 2019. doi: 10.1186/s42400-019-0038-7. (in English)

[9] R. Sommer and V. Paxson, "Outside the closed world: On using machine learning for network intrusion detection," in Proc. 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 305-316, 2010. doi: 10.1109/SP.2010.25. (in English)

[10] N. Shone, T. N. Ngoc, V. D. Phai, and Q. Shi, "A deep learning approach to network intrusion detection," IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 41-50, Feb. 2018. doi: 10.1109/TETCI.2017.2772792. (in English)

[11] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, "XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system," in Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 785-794, 2016. doi: 10.1145/2939672.2939785. (in English)

[12] J. R. Quinlan, C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1993. doi: 10.1016/C2009-0-27846-9. (in English)

[13] Cloudflare, "WAF attack score," Cloudflare Developers Documentation, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://developers.cloudflare.com/waf/detections/attack-score/ (accessed Jun. 9, 2026). (in English)

[14] Cloudflare, "Bot Management," Cloudflare Developers Documentation, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://developers.cloudflare.com/bots/get-started/bot-management/ (accessed Jun. 9, 2026). (in English)

[15] Cloudflare, "JA3/JA4 fingerprint," Cloudflare Bot Solutions Documentation, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://developers.cloudflare.com/bots/additional-configurations/ja3-ja4-fingerprint/ (accessed Jun. 9, 2026). (in English)

[16] V. Gasimov and B. Ismailov, "Analysis of the results of simulative modelling of the information security system in the corporate networks of higher education institutions," Information Technologies and Learning Tools, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 211–223, 2024. doi: 10.33407/itlt.v102i4.5757. (in English)

[17] O. Buinytska, T. Terletska, V. Smirnova, A. Tiutiunnyk, I. Kovalenko, and B. Hrytseliak, "Artificial intelligence in open university ecosystem context," Information Technologies and Learning Tools, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 204–221, 2025. doi: 10.33407/itlt.v105i1.5959. (in English)

[18] Y. V. Shchavinsky, T. M. Muzhanova, Y. M. Yakymenko, and M. M. Zaporozhchenko, "Application of artificial intelligence for improving situational training of cybersecurity specialists," Information Technologies and Learning Tools, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 215–226, 2023. doi: 10.33407/itlt.v97i5.5424. (in English)

[19] O. Burov, O. Butnik-Siversky, O. Orliuk, and K. Horska, "Cybersecurity and innovative digital educational environment," Information Technologies and Learning Tools, vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 414–430, 2020. doi: 10.33407/itlt.v80i6.4159. (in English)

[20] V. A. Gasimov, N. F. Mammadzada, J. I. Mammadov, and E. A. Mustafayeva, "Maze based image encryption method constructed by random number generation," Eurasian Journal of Mathematical and Computer Applications, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 35–50, 2024. doi: 10.32523/2306-6172-2024-12-3-35-50. (in English)

[21] F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort et al., "Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python," Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://jmlr.org/papers/volume12/pedregosa11a/pedregosa11a.pdf. (in English)

[22] L. Breiman, "Random forests," Machine Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32, 2001. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324. (in English)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2026 Artughrul Gayibov, Vagif Gasimov, Islam Islamov, Jabir Mammadov, Seyran Gayibov

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.