Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) play a significant role in cybersecurity as they detect potential threats and protect network infrastructure. With the existing cybersecurity environment, the selection of the most suitable IDS software tool is very crucial to provide strong cybersecurity practices in organizations. The availability of various IDS software tools with varying features and capabilities makes the selection of the optimal one a complex decision-making problem. Conventional multi-criteria Decision making (MCDM) approaches cannot deal with the uncertainty and ambiguity associated with these criteria, which can result in making wrong decisions. The current study introduces a novel framework for the selection of an optimal IDS software tool that integrates Neutrosophic sets and COCOSO (Combined Compromise Solution) to effectively deal with the uncertainty involved in IDS selection. The Best-Worst Method considers the best and worst criteria for consistent and accurate weight assignment to improve decision accuracy. The Neutrosophic approach deals with ambiguity by considering truth, falsity, and indeterminacy together, and improves the flexibility of the COCOSO approach to assess these IDS software tools. A case study illustrates the usability and efficiency of the introduced framework to select an IDS software tool in secure dynamic environments over conventional approaches.
ZhaoLWangYChenZ. A comparative study of IDS systems based on machine learning techniques. J Inf Secu Appl2022; 65: 103119.
2.
ChenJWangL. Evaluating intrusion detection systems with advanced machine learning techniques: a multi-criteria analysis. J Cybersecur Res2022; 12: 185–202.
3.
KumarSKaurR. Comparative analysis of machine learning-based intrusion detection systems in cybersecurity. Comput Secur J2023; 15: 201–219.
4.
IftikharAAzweenAAbdullah SA. Towards the selection of best neural network system for intrusion detection. Int J Phys Sci2010; 5: 1830–1839.
5.
AlharbiASehAHAlosaimiW, et al.Analyzing the impact of cyber security related attributes for intrusion detection systems. Sustainability2021; 13: 12337.
6.
AlhakamiW. Evaluating modern intrusion detection methods in the face of gen V multi-vector attacks with fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS. PloS One2024; 9: e0302559.
7.
HossainMAAliSHKhanAM. Enhancing decision-making in cybersecurity: a fuzzy MCDM approach for IDS selection. J Cyber Secur Mobility2023; 12: 43–58.
8.
SmarandacheF. Neutrosophic theory and its applications in cybersecurity: advances and challenges. Int J Neutrosophic Sci2023; 9: 78–91.
9.
SalamaMASmarandacheF. Introduction to neutrosophic logic and set theory: foundations, methods, and applications. Int J Neutrosophic Sci2022; 7: 89–101.
10.
RezaeiJ. Best-worst method: recent advances and applications in multi-criteria decision-making. Int J Oper Res2022; 23: 435–449.
11.
ZavadskasEKKaklauskasASarkaV. The COPRAS method for multi-criteria decision-making. Int J Oper Res1996; 10: 103–115.
12.
ZavadskasEKTurskisZMedineE. Recent developments in the cocoso method for multi-criteria decision-making applications. Int J Decis Support Syst2023; 14: 250–267.
13.
MilenkoskiAVieiraMKounevS, et al.Evaluating computer intrusion detection systems: a survey of common practices. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR)2015; 48: 1–41.
14.
SchrötterMSchefflerTSchnorB. Evaluation of intrusion detection systems in IPv6 networks In: ICETE2019, p. 408–416.
15.
HuQYuSYAsgharMR. Analysing performance issues of open-source intrusion detection systems in high-speed networks. J Inf Secur Appl2022; 51: 102426.
16.
WaleedAJamaliAFMasoodA. Which open-source ids? Snort, suricata or zeek. Comput Netw2022; 213: 109116.
17.
WahyuAPFauziahKNahrowiAS, et al.Strengthening network security: evaluation of intrusion detection and prevention systems tools in networking systems. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl2023; 14: 1–10.
18.
BoukebousAAEFettacheMIBendiabG, et al.A comparative analysis of snort 3 and suricata. In: 2023 IEEE IAS Global Conference on Emerging Technologies (GlobConET), 2023, IEEE. pp.1–6.
19.
GhaziDSHamidHSZaiterMJ, et al. Snort versus suricata in intrusion detection. Iraqi J Inf Commun Technol2024; 7: 73–88.
20.
ChinnasamyPSivaKrishnaiahCAnjaliT, et al.Managing network security in IT sector using the suricata. In: 2025 3rd International Conference on Self Sustainable Artificial Intelligence Systems (ICSSAS), 2025, IEEE, pp.1721–1728.
21.
YangZ. Evaluation of intrusion detection systems in cyber security using fuzzy OffLogic and MCDM approach. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems2025; 85: 20.
22.
AlmuseelemW. Perspective chapter: intrusion detection systems in cloud environment. IntechOpen2025. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1008756.
23.
TaitKAKhanJSAlqahtaniF, et al.Intrusion detection using machine learning techniques: an experimental comparison. In: 2021 International Congress of Advanced Technology and Engineering (ICOTEN), pp.1–10. IEEE.
24.
AlbulayhiKAbu Al-HaijaQAlsuhibany SA, et al.Iot intrusion detection using machine learning with a novel high performing feature selection method. Appl Sci2022; 12: 5015.
25.
AbdulRaheemMOladipoIDImoizeAL, et al.Machine learning assisted snort and zeek in detecting DDoS attacks in software-defined networking. Int J Inf Technol2024; 16: 1627–1643.
26.
SeelammalCDeviKV. Multi-criteria decision support for feature selection in network anomaly detection system. Int J Data Anal Tech Strat2018; 10: 334–350.
27.
Belal MMSundaram DM. An intelligent protection framework for intrusion detection in cloud environment based on covariance matrix self-adaptation evolution strategy and multi-criteria decision-making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2023; 44: 8971–9001.
28.
AlmotiriSH. Integrated fuzzy based computational mechanism for the selection of effective malicious traffic detection approach. IEEE Access2021; 9: 10751–10764.
29.
AlyamiHAnsariMTJAlharbiA, et al.Effectiveness evaluation of different IDSs using integrated fuzzy MCDM model. Electronics2022; 11: 859.
30.
Abushark YBIrshad KhanAAlsolamiF, et al.Cyber security analysis and evaluation for intrusion detection systems. Comput Mater Continua2022; 72: 1765–1783.
31.
Abdel-BassetMGamalASallamKM, et al.An optimization model for appraising intrusion-detection systems for network security communications: applications, challenges, and solutions. Sensors2022; 22: 4123.
32.
AbdelMoutyAMAbdel-MonemA. Neutrosophic MCDM methodology for assessment risks of cyber security in power management. Neutrosophic Syst with Appl2023; 3: 53–61.
33.
JarabaaMI. Assessing the Widely Used Cyber Security Tools Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making 2024. Doctoral dissertation, Mutah University.
34.
YazdaniMZaratePKazimieras ZavadskasE, et al.A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manage Decis2019; 57: 2501–2519.
35.
NabeehNASallamKM. A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) of MCDM problems for selection of medical best bearing ring. Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems2024; 1: 1–13.
36.
Nguyen TMHNguyenVPNguyen DT. A new hybrid pythagorean fuzzy AHP and COCOSO MCDM based approach by adopting artificial intelligence technologies. J Exp Theor Artif Intell2024; 36: 1279–1305.
37.
SmarandacheF. Neutrosophic logic as a theory of everything inlogics. Multispace and multistructure. Neutrosophic transdisciplinariry (100 collected papers of sciences), 2010, pp. 525–527.
38.
ChengXChenC. Decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy best-worst method. Expert Syst Appl2024; 237:121215.
39.
Tanaji BARoychowdhuryS. BWM Integrated VIKOR method using neutrosophic fuzzy sets for cybersecurity risk assessment of connected and autonomous vehicles. Appl Soft Comput2024; 159: 111628.
40.
El SaberNMohamedMAbdelAzizNM. Decarbonization transportation: evaluating role of cyber security in transportation sector based on neutrosophic techniques in a climate of uncertainty. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems2023; 60: 570–582.
41.
XuWLinM. Information security evaluation of industrial control systems using probabilistic linguistic MCDM method. Comput, Mater Continua2023; 77: 199–222.
42.
ThakkarALohiyaR. A survey on intrusion detection system: feature selection, model, performance measures, application perspective, challenges, and future research directions. Artif Intell Rev2022; 55: 453–563.
43.
MuneerSFarooqUAtharA, et al.A critical review of artificial intelligence based approaches in intrusion detection: a comprehensive analysis. J Eng2024; 2024: 3909173.
44.
ScarfoneKMellP. Guide to intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDPS). NIST Spec Publ2007; 800: 1–127.
45.
ChoiBH. NIST's software un-standards. Geo L Tech Rev2025; 9: 65.
46.
Jakse SchönfelderIGustafssonM. Intrusion Detection on Network Video Surveillance Systems. 2024.
47.
RahejaSGargRGargR. A ranking framework for the selection of IoT cloud platforms using hybrid multi-attribute decision-making method. Int J Intell Comput Cybern2024; 17: 824–843.
