What is the different amongst the state-of-the-art methods proposed
to date and what is their merit?
What are the most relevant parameters that can affect encryption techniques performance
Twana Latif Mohammed
This study presents a survey on of the literature on cryptography
schema and techniques up till date. The growth of using important digital data
through internet owes greatly to one of the highly challenging problems of
encryption and decryption fields. The main objective of this paper is to
illustrate the most important algorithms that have been proposed by previous
researchers. Add to that, this study will focus on the role of the cryptography in secure the data and show the strengths and
weaknesses of each technique.
In 2012 explained Rivest Cipher (RC5) encryption algorithm this
algorithm a fast-symmetric block cipher hardware or software execution. RC5
algorithms use the 16,32 and 64 block ciphers for
encryption and the same size of block cipher for the decryption (Verma, Singh, 2012). The Data Encryption Standard (DES) uses the 56-bit
key and 64-bit plaintext for encryption which means in the same time 64 bits of data encrypted, then consist of 16 rounds and using
S-Box, and the input and output the same size of bit (Verma, Singh, 2012). Compare the several encryption algorithms by using
different hardware and to controlling the time of processing for both
algorithms encryption and decryptions that graphic of computer such as Intel i5, Intel
i3, Intel dual-core
and by using 2.27 GHz, 2.53 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.66 GHz for the speed and comparing
the process of encryption and decryption algorithm process (Mittal, 2012). In
this research assessment, the performance
of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) and DES, on the two-different plat
(windows and mac) in term time and SPU for unlike file size used to crosscheck between AES and DES (Rihan,
khalid, Osman, 2015).
In his paper, compare the performance of six cryptography
algorithms “AES, DES, Triple DES(3DES), Rivest Cipher (RC2), Blowfish, and
(Rivest Cipher) RC6” in the term of Central Process Unit (CPU) time
consumption, memory usage, and effect on battery life. Algorithms are opposed
in parallel with different input types such as different data block size,
different data types, battery power consumption, different size of the key
used, and finally encryption/decryption speed (Abd
Elminaam, Abdul Kader, Hadhoud, 2008).
On the other hand, another algorithm to encryption and decryption
called CAST-128, it is the group of cipher block and uses a 64-bit block with
40-128 bit key and 4 S-box when the CAST have 16 rounds (Mushtaque,2014)
. After Blowfish algorithm is the one of the symmetric group of algorithms then
it uses 64-bit block cipher with 32-bit to 448-bit key, a number of the key
depends on S-box. Each one has 32-bits of data (Bhanot, Hans, 2015).
Elminaam, Abdul Kader, Hadhoud, 2008), After applying changes for same instances for each algorithm we
concluded that first; there is no significant difference when the results are
showed either in hexadecimal base encoding or in base 64 encoding. Secondly;
when we applied different packet size, it was concluded that Blowfish has
better performance than other typical encryption algorithms, followed by RC6.
Third; in the case of applying different data type such as an image in place of text, it discovered that RC2,
RC6 and Blowfish has a disadvantage over other algorithms in terms of
time consumption. Also, we find that 3DES still has low performance as opposed
to algorithm DES.
In general, the literature on encryption algorithms grew some
result for each technic. However, the author evaluated the time of encryption
and decryption algorithm. Time for both algorithm completed on the unlike file
size. The time for processing the encryption of DES lesser than the encryption
of DES (Maqsood, Ali, Ahmed, Shah, 2017). When the file size increase then the time for encryption and decryption
similarly increased (Maqsood, Ali, Ahmed, Shah, 2017). In addition, RC5 is 1.54
times faster than Blowfish and 2.57 times faster than DES (Verma, Singh, 2012). As a result, the performance
of Blowfish technique depends on the size
of the key used in the algorithm, if the size of the key expansion, so the performance will degrade (Verma, Singh, 2012).
By using one or two parameters
some author makes a comparison between encryption and decryption algorithms. In
(Ebrahim, Khan, Khalid, 2013), a comparative study
of the performance of AES and DES are performed, at this research, it is not clear which algorithm
better than the other. Generally, the author concentrated on the encryption and
decryption time more than algorithms (Nie, Li, Song, 2010)( Thambiraja,
Ramesh, Umarani, 2012)( Ramesh,
Suruliandi, 2013). They could not say which algorithms are resourceful and active. So, they need to use
all the parameters of the technique, then they determine which algorithm is
active and more secure.
In (Mushtaque, 2014), the result that has been achieved in this
paper after comparing and analyzing of symmetric key encryption algorithm depends
on different factors. Blowfish and AES are both achieved the same and highest
performance of encryption among other techniques and DES and CAST 5 achieved
the same performance. On the other hand, memory usage by AES and DES are
similar but, the performance of the AES is very higher than DES. In (Bhanot,
Hans, 2015), after analysis some technics get the outcome it is Blowfish have a
faster encryption algorithm and more secure. In (Maqsood, Ali, Ahmed, Shah,
2017), this study gets the output that the performance of symmetric is cheaper than asymmetric schema. The amount of bit in the key determine
the key generation time. Consequently,
on the Windows operating system or Mac
operating system AES algorithm needed a small amount of time than DES algorithm
(Rihan, khalid, Osman, 2015).
Based on the above explanation, the research questions concerning encryption and decryption algorithms
that are examined in the present paper are as follows:
§ What is the different amongst the state-of-the-art methods proposed
to date and what is their merit?
§ What are the most relevant parameters that can affect encryption techniques performance
Bhanot, R., & Hans, R. (2015). A
review and comparative analysis of various encryption algorithms. International
Journal of Security and Its Applications, 9(4), 289-306.
Ebrahim, M., Khan, S., & Khalid,
U. B. (2014). Symmetric algorithm survey: a comparative analysis. arXiv
Elminaam, D. S. A., Kader, H. M. A.,
& Hadhoud, M. M. (2008). Performance evaluation of symmetric encryption
algorithms. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and
Network Security, 8(12), 280-286.
Maqsood, F., Ahmed, M., Ali, M. M.,
& Shah, M. A. (2017). Cryptography: A Comparative Analysis for Modern Techniques. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
ADVANCED COMPUTER SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, 8(6), 442-448.
Mittal, M. (2012). Performance
evaluation of cryptographic algorithms. International Journal of
Computer Applications, 41(7).
Mushtaque, M. A. (2014). Comparative
analysis on different parameters of
encryption algorithms for information security. International Journal
of Computer Sciences and Engineering, 2, 76-82.
Nie, T., Li, Y., & Song, C.
(2010, June). Performance evaluation for CAST and RC5 Encryption Algorithms.
In Computing, Control and Industrial Engineering (CCIE), 2010
International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 106-109). IEEE.
Ramesh, A., & Suruliandi, A.
(2013, March). Performance analysis of encryption algorithms for Information
Security. In Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies (ICCPCT), 2013 International Conference on (pp.
Rihan, S. D., Khalid, A., &
Osman, S. E. F. (2015). A performance comparison of encryption algorithms AES
and DES. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 4(12),
Thambiraja, E., Ramesh, G., &
Umarani, D. R. (2012). A survey on various most common encryption
techniques. International journal of advanced research in computer
science and software engineering, 2(7).
Verma, H. K., & Singh, R. K.
Performance Analysis of RC5, Blowfish and DES Block Cipher Algorithms. International
Journal of Computer Applications (0975–8887) Volume.
Elminaam, D. S. A., Abdual-Kader, H. M., &
Hadhoud, M. M. (2010). Evaluating the performance of symmetric encryption
algorithms. IJ Network Security, 10(3), 216-222.