Науковий вісник НГУ

Simulation-driven assessment of cryptographic algorithms for resource-constrained infocommunication networks

• 
• 

User Rating:  / 0

PoorBest 

Details

Category: Content №6 2025

Last Updated on 25 December 2025

Published on 30 November -0001

Hits: 1720

Authors:

I. S. Laktionov, orcid.org/0000-0001-7857-6382, Dnipro University of Technology, Dnipro, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V. V. Hnatushenko*, orcid.org/0000-0003-3140-3788, Dnipro University of Technology, Dnipro, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I. M. Udovyk, orcid.org/0000-0002-5190-841X, Dnipro University of Technology, Dnipro, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V. I. Olevskyi, orcid.org/0000-0003-3824-1013, Dnipro University of Technology, Dnipro, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

* Corresponding author e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

повний текст / full article

Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu. 2025, (6): 148 - 156

https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/2025-6/148

Abstract:

Purpose. To conduct a multi-criteria evaluation and analysis of the performance of encryption algorithms that may be potentially resistant to contemporary cyberattacks, including quantum attacks. The evaluation takes into account the ability of the algorithms to be deployed on devices with limited computational resources within the infocommunication networks during the transmission of information messages.

Methodology. Software implementation, testing and validation of selected cryptographic algorithms based on Python, considering the impact of limited resources and destabilising factors, such as signal noise components, based on computer experiments were applied. The performance of the studied cryptographic algorithms was analysed using statistical data processing methods and a multi-criteria evaluation approach.

Findings. The symmetric algorithms AES-256-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305 demonstrated the highest accuracy in signal recovery following encryption and decryption (MSE ranges from 1.95 · 10^-6 to 5.12 · 10^-5). The time taken to encrypt and decrypt I/Q signals using symmetric algorithms was found to be around 2.5 times faster than that required by the Kyber family. Computer experiments confirmed the existence of a trade-off between processing speed and security level. Symmetric algorithms are optimal for scenarios with critical processing speed requirements. However, Kyber provides greater protection reliability, albeit at the cost of additional resources. The correctness of the proposed computer model, which enables the computational and information-functional characteristics of cryptographic algorithms to be evaluated, has been proven.

Originality. Patterns of the destabilising influence of signal-to-noise ratio indicators and signal length on the accuracy of digital signal recovery after encryption have been established for different cryptographic algorithms (AES, ChaCha20 and the Kyber) in the context of their use in resource-constrained infocommunication systems.

Practical value. Implementing the computer model proved its suitability for studying cryptographic algorithms in resource-constrained environments, as well as its potential for improving information security protocols and selecting optimal algorithms based on processing speed requirements and desired security levels.

Keywords: cryptographic algorithm, signal, noise, ciphertext, infocommunication network, accuracy, model

References.

1. Kashtan, V. Yu., Hnatushenko, V. V., Laktionov, I. S., & Diachenko, H. H. (2024). Intelligent Sentinel satellite image processing technology for land cover mapping. Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu, (5), 143-150. https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/2024-5/143

2. Laktionov, I., Diachenko, G., Koval, V., & Yevstratiev, M. (2023). Computer-Oriented Model for Network Aggregation of Measurement Data in IoT Monitoring of Soil and Climatic Parameters of Agricultural Crop Production Enterprises. Baltic Journal of Modern ­Computing, 11(3), 500-522. https://doi.org/10.22364/bjmc.2023.11.3.09

3. IATA: IATA Releases 2024 Safety Report (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-02-26-01/

4. IATA: EASA and IATA Publish Comprehensive Plan to Mitigate the Risks of GNSS Interference (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-06-18-01/

5. Blatnik, A., & Batagelj, B. (2025). Evaluating GNSS Receiver Resilience: A Study on Simulation Environment Repeatability. Electronics, 14(9), 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14091797

6. SeRo Systems: Detecting and Monitoring GPS Jamming and Spoofing in the Airspace (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.sero-systems.de/case-studies/tracking-the-threat?

7. ITU: SG17: Security. Available online (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/17/Pages/default.aspx

8. ITU: X.1303: Common alerting protocol (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1303-200709-I/en

9. ENISA: State of cybersecurity in the EU (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.enisa.europa.eu/

10.      3GPP: A Global Initiative (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/33_series/33.501/

11.      Szymanski, T. H. (2024). A Quantum-Safe Software-Defined Deterministic Internet of Things (IoT) with Hardware-Enforced Cyber-Security for Critical Infrastructures. Information, 15(4), 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15040173

12.      Ehsan, M. A., Alayed, W., Rehman, A. U., Hassan, W.U., & Zeeshan, A. (2025). Post-Quantum KEMs for IoT: A Study of Kyber and NTRU. Symmetry, 17(6), 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17060881

13.      Alkurdi, Y., Abu Al-Haija, Q., & Al Fayoumi, M. (2024). Review of quantum theories for the design of post-quantum crypto systems: CRYSTALS-Kyber as a case study. IET Conference Proceedings, 610-618. https://doi.org/10.1049/icp.2025.0860

14.      Rao, S. K., Mahto, D., & Yadav, D. K. (2017). The AES-256 Cryptosystem Resists Quantum Attacks. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 8(3), 404-408. https://doi.org/10.26483/ijarcs.v8i3.3025

15.      Baseri, Y., Chouhan, V., & Hafid, A. (2024). Navigating quantum security risks in networked environments: A comprehensive study of quantum-safe network protocols. Computers & Security, 142, 103883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.103883

16.      Santo, A. D., Tiberti, W., & Cassioli, D. (2025). An Adaptive Dual-Stack QKD-PQC Framework for Secure and Reliable Inter-Site Communication. Joint National Conference on Cybersecurity (ITASEC & SERICS 2025), 1-12. Retrieved from https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3962/paper56.pdf

17.      Kumar, M. (2022). Post-quantum cryptography Algorithm’s standardization and performance analysis. Array, 15, 100242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2022.100242

18.      Ojetunde, B., Kurihara, T., Yano, K., Sakano, T., & Yokoyama, H. (2025). A Practical Implementation of Post-Quantum Cryptography for Secure Wireless Communication. Network, 5(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/network5020020

19.      Scalise, P., Garcia, R., Boeding, M., Hempel, M., & Sharif, H. (2024). An Applied Analysis of Securing 5G/6G Core Networks with Post-Quantum Key Encapsulation Methods. Electronics, 13(21), 4258. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13214258

20.      Pandit, A. A., & Mishra, A. (2024). Efficient implementation of post quantum MLWR-based PKE scheme using NTT. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 118(A), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compeleceng.2024.109358

21.      Winter, A., Morrison, A., Hasler, O., & Sokolova, N. (2025). Exploitation of 5G, LTE, and Automatic Identification System Signals for Fallback Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Navigation. Engineering Proceedings, 88(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025088049

22.      Boodai, J., Alqahtani, A., & Frikha, M. (2023). Review of Physical Layer Security in 5G Wireless Networks. Applied Sciences, 13(12), 7277. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13127277

23.      Kang, M., Park, S., & Lee, Y. (2024). A Survey on Satellite Communication System Security. Sensors, 24(9), 2897. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24092897

24.      Abdelsalam, N., Al-Kuwari, S., & Erbad, A. (2025). Physical layer security in satellite communication: State-of-the-art and open problems. IET Communications, 19, e12830. https://doi.org/10.1049/cmu2.12830

25.      Salim, S., Moustafa, N., & Reisslein, M. (2025). Cybersecurity of Satellite Communications Systems: A Comprehensive Survey of the Space, Ground, and Links Segments. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 27(1), 372-425. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2024.3408277

26.      Laktionov, I. S., Vovna, O. V., Kabanets, M. M., Sheina, H. O., & Getman, I. A. (2021). Information model of the computer-integrated technology for wireless monitoring of the state of microclimate of industrial agricultural greenhouses. Instrumentation Mesure Metrologie, 20(6), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.18280/i2m.200601

27.      Hnatushenko, V., Kogut, P., & Uvarov, M. (2022). Variational approach for rigid co-registration of optical/SAR satellite images in agricultural areas. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 400, 113742. https://doi/org.10.1016/j.cam.2021.113742

• < Prev
• Next >