The widespread use of TLS in IoT and networked systems increases inspection cost while restricting direct access to payload content. This paper presents the Adaptive Secure Inspection Framework (ASIF), a resource-aware selective network traffic inspection framework that coordinates certificate-based routing, authorized targeted decryption, known-signature matching, and learned flow classification. ASIF contains three components: (1) a Certificate Screening Module (CSM), which applies configured checks of root trust, chain integrity, and leaf-certificate validity as an early routing signal; (2) a Targeted Decryption and Signature Matching Module (TDSMM), which directs certificate-suspicious traffic to authorized Mitmproxy interception and Snort inspection; and (3) an Attentive Feature Fusion Network (AFFN), which combines global and local representations for network-flow classification. The evaluation covers controlled certificate cases, selective-decryption overhead, known-signature matching, learned classification on three intrusion datasets, a supplementary VPN/non-VPN task, held-out attack families, and the integrated pipeline. The intrusion-dataset labels do not establish that every flow is encrypted. Several models obtain near-ceiling scores under the balanced grouped protocol, while AFFN achieves a macro-F1 of 0.639 ± 0.149 on the supplementary ISCX VPN/non-VPN task and does not outperform all baselines. Across held-out attack families, recall averages 0.527 ± 0.466, indicating strong family dependence. In the controlled end-to-end experiment, complete ASIF decrypts 50% of requests and reduces mean latency from 278.78 to 164.19 ms/request relative to full decryption, while malicious-class recall decreases to 0.500 and macro-F1 to 0.733 because valid-certificate malicious traffic bypasses deeper inspection. These results characterize ASIF as a resource-aware selective inspection strategy with explicit coverage limitations rather than a universal encrypted-malicious-traffic detector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: