VNU SQLi Detection Models

Trained model artifacts for a 3-branch AI-based SQL Injection detection system, deployed at the Database Proxy layer:

  • Branch 1 — supervised multi-class classifier (Normal + 5 SQLi variants), per query.
  • Branch 2 — anomaly detector trained on benign traffic only (generalises to unseen syntax).
  • Branch 3 — Session Correlator: not a separately-trained model, re-uses Branch 1 + Branch 2 and correlates their signals over a session (the main contribution).

Training data: Jason-42195/VNU-SQLi-Detection.

Contents

Folder Branch Model Headline metric
branch1_v1/ 1 DistilBERT (fine-tuned, 6-class) F1-macro 0.9699
branch1_v1_logreg_backup/ 1 TF-IDF (char) + Logistic Regression — former production champion, superseded F1-macro 0.8977
branch1_comparison/ 1 4 candidate architectures (6-class) see table below
branch1_no_*/ 1 Leave-one-class-out ablations (zero-day coverage) F1 ~0.98–0.99 on remaining
branch2_v1/ 2 Local Outlier Factor (12 structural/lexical features) AUC 0.915, detection 78.4% @ FPR 5.3%
branch2_zeroday/ 2 Local Outlier Factor (zero-day coverage variant) —
branch3_v2/ 3 Session Correlator (no weights — reuses branch1_v1/branch2_v1, 4 calibrated thresholds) FPR=0.0, detection rate 95.7–100% on 3 session-attack classes, 280-session held-out test set

Download everything: hf download Jason-42195/VNU-SQLi-Detection-Models --local-dir models/


branch1_v1/ — Branch 1 (supervised multiclass) — production

Fine-tuned distilbert-base-uncased (max_length 128, 3 epochs). Classifies a query into one of 6 classes: normal, union_based, error_based, boolean_blind, time_blind, stacked.

  • F1-macro: 0.9699 on the held-out test set (18,295 rows; 71,705 train rows).
  • p50 latency ~2.8 ms (GPU), size ~256 MB.
  • Chosen over the lighter TF-IDF+LogReg baseline (branch1_v1_logreg_backup/, F1-macro 0.8977) because the gap concentrates in the two hardest classes: stacked (0.700 → 0.932) and time_blind (0.812 → 0.973) — see branch1_comparison/ below. Latency is still real-time.
  • Files: model.safetensors, tokenizer.json, tokenizer_config.json, config.json, metadata.json.
from src.models.branch1_loader import load_branch1_artifacts

vectorizer, clf = load_branch1_artifacts("branch1_v1")  # auto-detects DistilBERT vs sklearn layout
X = vectorizer.transform(["1' OR '1'='1"])
clf.predict(X)  # -> array([3])  (3 = boolean_blind)

branch1_v1_logreg_backup/ — former production model (superseded)

TF-IDF (char_wb, 2–4 gram, 50k features) + Logistic Regression. Kept as a lightweight fallback and as the baseline in the architecture comparison. F1-macro 0.8977 on the same 6-class split — same loader (load_branch1_artifacts) works on this folder too (vectorizer.joblib + model.joblib layout).

branch1_comparison/ — Branch 1 architecture comparison (6-class)

Four candidates trained on the same 6-class data, including stacked (train/compare_branch1_architectures.py). DistilBERT was chosen for production: the F1 gap over TF-IDF+LogReg concentrates in stacked/time_blind, and latency/size are still acceptable.

Candidate F1-macro p50 latency Size
candidate_tfidf_logreg 0.8977 0.5 ms 0.4 MB
candidate_tfidf_lightgbm 0.9624 3.0 ms 4.7 MB
candidate_distilbert 0.9648 2.8 ms (GPU) 256 MB
candidate_cnn_sqltok 0.7490 0.3 ms 0.15 MB

(Deployed branch1_v1/ scores slightly higher, 0.9699, because it was retrained afterwards on a larger train split — see metadata.json in each folder for exact row counts.)

Only the two neural candidates' weights are hosted here (candidate_distilbert/: model.safetensors + tokenizer/config; candidate_cnn_sqltok/: model.pt + vocab.json).

The CNN candidate is a small TextCNN over a char-level SQL tokenizer; reconstruct it with the helper in train/compare_branch1_architectures.py (_build_textcnn_class, _encode_texts) and the saved vocab.json.

branch1_no_*/ — leave-one-class-out ablations (zero-day coverage)

Four Branch-1 models, each trained with one attack class excluded (branch1_no_union_based, branch1_no_error_based, branch1_no_boolean_blind, branch1_no_time_blind). Used to measure whether the anomaly branch / combined system still catches an attack family the supervised model was never trained on. Each scores F1-macro ~0.98–0.99 on its remaining classes. metadata.json records excluded_label.

branch2_v1/ — Branch 2 (anomaly detection) — production

Local Outlier Factor (n_neighbors=5, contamination=0.05) trained on benign traffic only, using 12 structural/lexical features (length, special-char ratio, SQL keyword count, entropy, bigram entropy, quote/paren imbalance, token-length/run stats) — not TF-IDF, so it generalises to unseen attack syntax.

  • AUC 0.915, detection rate 78.4% at FPR 5.3% (full PR curve / threshold sweep in the project repo's report/metrics/).
  • Chosen over Isolation Forest (AUC 0.903) and One-Class SVM (AUC 0.579, which misclassified benign traffic from sources unlike its training distribution as anomalous).
# From within the project repo (needs src.models.branch2_anomaly.AnomalyDetector):
from src.models.branch2_anomaly import AnomalyDetector
import numpy as np

detector = AnomalyDetector.load("branch2_v1")
X = np.array([[40, 0.05, 1, 3.6, 0, 0, 0, 5, 8, 0, 0, 0]])  # 12 features, see feature_names in metadata.json
detector.score(X)          # continuous anomaly score
detector.predict(X)        # boolean/label flag

branch2_zeroday/ — Branch 2 (zero-day coverage variant)

Local Outlier Factor with the same config as branch2_v1, used in the zero-day coverage experiment (pairs with the branch1_no_* ablations). Same loader as branch2_v1.

branch3_v2/ — Branch 3 (Session Correlator)

Not a trained model — no weights, just metadata.json holding 4 calibrated scalar thresholds (content_threshold, per_query_threshold, median_threshold, fraction_threshold). At inference time it re-uses branch1_v1's classifier (re-scores the session's concatenated query text) and branch2_v1's anomaly detector (aggregates its per-query scores), OR'ing the two checks together. Classifies a session into 4 classes: benign, boolean_blind, time_blind, query_splitting. See the project repo's src/models/branch3_session.py (SessionCorrelator) for the scoring logic, and report/plan/data_contract.md §4.2 for why this replaced an earlier trained GRU design (branch3_v1, removed) — a diagnostic found the GRU's dense projection collapsed a clear bisection signal (cosine similarity 0.961 between consecutive steps) into near-identical post-classifier probabilities.

Content-check alone and the combined check both reach FPR=0.0 with detection 95.7–100% across the 3 session-attack classes on 280 held-out sessions; the behavior-check alone misses time_blind entirely (0% — the content check is what carries that class), which is why the two are OR'd rather than used separately.


Limitations

  • Branch 1's boolean_blind class has ~13% measured label noise (catch-all bucket for unmatched attack rows) — see data_contract.md in the project repo.
  • The architecture-comparison numbers are on a harder 6-class split (adds stacked, previously a dead neuron in older 5-class experiments) — don't compare them to earlier 5-class READMEs.
  • Cross-split leakage (949 identical texts straddling train & test) was found and fixed by deduplicating query_canonical before the split; the numbers here are leakage-free.
  • No adversarial/obfuscation robustness testing yet.
  • Branch 3's session data is self-generated (bisection algorithm against a self-hosted demo DB), not independently-captured attacker traffic — near-perfect detection reflects both branches scoring data from the same generation process they were built around, not generalization to novel evasive traffic.
  • License: mixed/unclear for the underlying training data (see the dataset repo's card) — treat as research / course-project artifacts, not cleared for unrestricted reuse.

Project repo

Full source, training scripts, and documentation: the VNU-Database2-Project repo (private / course project — ask the author for access).

Downloads last month

-

Downloads are not tracked for this model. How to track
Inference Providers NEW
This model isn't deployed by any Inference Provider. 🙋 Ask for provider support