Dear Dr. Bhattacharyya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Anwar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Here are my comments:

1. The current title, "An authentication system based on MAC addresses for multilayered SDN intrusion detection using dual discriminator conditional GAN and growing self-organizing maps," is quite detailed but could be more concise and specific. Here are some suggestions to make the title more focused and clearer:

a. "MAC Address Authentication for SDN Security: A Dual Discriminator GAN and Self-Organizing Maps Approach".

b. "Intrusion Detection in SDN Using MAC-Based Authentication and Conditional GANs"

c. "Multilayered SDN Security with MAC Authentication and GAN-Based Intrusion Detection"

2. Although the abstract is clearly organized, there are several unclear passages. Change the words from "Computer networks are susceptible to cyber-security intrusions" for "Computer networks are highly vulnerable to cyber-security intrusions." Additionally, as some readers may not be aware with the term "Four-Q curve authentication," quickly define it for them.

3. Further background on SDN and its significance in the modern networking environment has to be included in the introduction. Provide a succinct explanation of the drawbacks of conventional SDN designs as well as the importance of multilayer SDN in improving network security.

4. The literature study needs to provide a comparative examination of the many strategies that have been discussed. Talk about each method's benefits and drawbacks in further depth. Furthermore, it is important to include new research conducted beyond 2020 in order to maintain the currency of the literature review.

5. The methodology part needs to have an elaborate flowchart or diagram that demonstrates the architecture of the suggested system. This will make the procedure easier for readers to see and comprehend the processes needed.

6. Give a more thorough description of the relevance of the "Four-Q curve authentication" procedure in the suggested system.

7. The DC-GAN technique should be explained in greater detail. Provide explanations of the dual discriminator's operation and how it improves intrusion detection accuracy using mathematical formulas and algorithms.

8. Give a thorough explanation of the Sheep Flock Optimization Algorithm (SFOA). Explain its function in DC-GAN optimization and the rationale behind selecting this specific method over alternative optimization strategies.

9. The ramifications of the results should be covered in more detail in the discussion section. Talk about the practical applications of the suggested system and how it could affect SDN security.

10. Discuss any potential drawbacks or restrictions with the suggested system and offer ideas for workarounds or new directions for investigation.

11. The main conclusions and contributions of the study should be succinctly summarized in the conclusion. Stress the newness and importance of the suggested system for improving SDN security.

12. Provide targeted recommendations for future research trajectories to improve the suggested system even further and fill up any gaps.

Reviewer #2: 1. Authors should provide some brief numerical results at the end of the abstract to demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves SOTA performance.

2. The authors should provide the reference when DCGAN was first introduced, rather than waiting until line 247. In addition, reference [33] is commonly known as DDcGAN, so why do the authors refer to it as DCGAN?

3. Abbreviations (e.g. MAC, DDoS, MLP, IoT, and others) need to be defined before being mentioned for the first time.

4. Each symbol in Equation 2 should be introduced, and its corresponding value and meaning should be clearly explained.

5. The paper lacks figures, and the authors should add them to paper.

6. F1-score is a metric that assesses model performance on a scale from 0 to 1. For instance, better to express the F1-score as 0.975 rather than 97.5%.

7. This paper lacks tables of experimental results.

8. Authors should provide a detailed explanation of the proposed figures. For instance, Figures 14 and 15 represent the Discriminator Loss and Generator Loss, respectively. However, the current descriptions lack clarity and specificity. To make the figures more meaningful, the authors should descript relevant numerical values and offer a more comprehensive interpretation.

Reviewer #3: The paper entitled “An authentication system based on MAC addresses for multilayered SDN intrusion detection using dual discriminator conditional GAN and growing self-organizing maps.” presents a novel four-Q curve authentication system based on MAC addresses for multilayered SDN intrusion detection system utilizing deep learning techniques to identify and prevent attacks. I have the following comments that could improve the paper's structure:

1. The abstract is satisfactory; however, it necessitates some enhancements. Authors should initially enhance the abstract's composition. Subsequently, it should explicitly illustrate the outcomes of the proposed scheme, including numerical values and percentages.

2. Authors should give additional consideration to certain aspects of the manuscript, as well as to the numerous errors and formatting issues that are present in the current version.

3. The current manuscript contains several typos and formatting issues, along with several considerations the authors should take into account, such as:

-Page 2: " Therefore, by implementing an effective IDS in MAC-based SDN system, adversaries can be reduced or eliminated".

The authors should check for similar mistakes and revise them.

4. I advise the authors to revise the quality of all figures.

5. The proposed solution by the authors suggests the following: First, in the infrastructure layer, deep learning models get trained with more robustness. In addition, in the control plane layer, the local discriminator consists of a leaky ReLU activation function, two batch normalization layers, and five convolutional layers. The discriminator system includes four fully connected layers. Lastly, the application layer contains an unsupervised neural network of the GSOM type based on the SOM methodology. My question is, is it a practical solution to use all these complex techniques within each part? Please discuss in detail.

6. Authors are advised to compare their work with the literature in the result section.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Radhwan Mohamed Abdullah

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Bhattacharyya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Anwar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: 1. Why did the authors abbreviate Dual-Discriminator Conditional Generative Adversarial Network [36] as DC-GAN instead of DDcGAN?

2. Authors should revise their paper carefully to avoid writing errors: e.g., single and double inverted commas are used in a confusing way, why are there 'L_loss' and "L_loss"?

The multiplication sign should not be replaced by word "x".

In addition, the symbolic fonts of the equation need to be checked and revised again.

3. Better to highlight the best performances in bold, or in a different color (e.g. red) to make the tables easier to read.

Reviewer #3: The authors respond to every comment. Other than that, I have no concerns. The paper can be accepted as it is.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: comment.docx

Multilayered SDN Security with MAC Authentication and GAN-Based Intrusion Detection

PONE-D-24-24864R2

Dear Dr. Bhattacharyya,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Anwar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********