A Novel Dual-Layer Quantum-Resilient Encryption Strategy for UAV–Cloud Communication Using Adaptive Lightweight Ciphers and Hybrid ECC–PQC

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a research work about an important topic – secure UAV communication in IoT systems. The experiments are well designed with rigorous metrices. The proposed method is also compared with other methods in the literatures. It fits the scope of the journal of Computer and should be considered for publishing. However, there are several concerns in this work about concepts and methodology which may limit and hinder its novelty and scientific rigor.

1. Dual-layer encryption is not a brand-new idea in IoT systems. The authors need to demonstrate more about what are actually innovative in this work.
2. The reduced computational overhead and end-to-end latency may be result from other reasons, e.g. optimized network path, or replaced heavy cipher. More details in experiments and analysis are needed to demonstrate that those improvements are directly from this proposed encryption scheme.
3. In the whole work it seems to be missing about the discussion of key management, which is essential in UAV cryptography. The authors should consider add more details about it in their proposed framework.

Author Response

Manuscript Title: A Novel Dual-Layer Quantum-Resilient Encryption for UAV–Cloud Communication Using Adaptive Lightweight Ciphers and Hybrid ECC–PQC

Manuscript ID: Computers-4035373

I would like to sincerely thank you for the time, effort, and expertise you dedicated to reviewing my manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the paper. I carefully considered each point you raised and revised the manuscript accordingly.

I am grateful for your thoughtful feedback, which not only strengthened this work but also provided me with valuable perspectives for my future research.

Thank you once again for your contribution and support.

All the revisions are included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes a new encryption scheme for securing UAV communication. It is based on two layers: the first layer (UAV to gateway) uses a lightweight symmetric encryption scheme, while the second one (gateway to cloud) relies on post-quantum asymmetric encryption. The authors analyze the computational overhead and the end-to-end latency, obtaining favorable results, which recommend their method as a valid and practical alternative to today's schemes.

Remarks:

1. It's recommended to have the references numbered by their order of appearance in the manuscript (now we have [7], [8], [9], [15], and so on). They should be renumbered according to their first appearance in the text.

2. Add a punctuation sign at the end of line 91.

3. On line 93, remove the dot sign (full stop): "... accountability and resilience...".

4. On line 118 there is an extra closed parentheses; or maybe add an opening one before PQC: "...post-quantum cryptography (PQC)...".

5. Line 119, "motivated" should be written with a lower letter (no capitalization).

6. Line 120: "Their" should be written with a capital letter.

7. Line 122: English check, capital letter: "Results show".

8. Line 124: lowercase "while".

9. Line 125: there is an extra open parentheses before "20 KB".

10. Line 131: lowercase "supported".

11. Line 201: the verb should be "was" instead of "were" if the subject is "workflow".

12. Line 201, 202 and 208: first word should start with a capital letter.

13. Line 208: remove the dot sign (full stop) before "to measure": 
"...with low UAV overhead to measure latency...".

14. Enhance the quality of Figure 1 (or perhaps split it in 2 figures and also make it larger). Add text (continue the paper) on page 6 (immediately after line 210), there is no need for the white space (move Section 3.1 on page 6, and so on).

15. Line 219: "Cloud" instead of "cloud".

16. Line 224: missing closed parentheses after MITM.

17. Line 228 "We", line 230: "The".

18. Line 237, formula (1): please indicate an acceptable margin for the error parameter in the context of quantum adversaries (if possible).

19. Line 250: "This"; line 251: "scenarios" and add a full stop sign.

20. Line 253: "The length..."; line 254: "For example...".

21. Line 261: "(ECDH)"; line 262: "the keys" instead of "key".

22. Line 264: "A flexible...".

23. How does the gateway know the exact scenario (battery level) for each UAV? Are these parameters transmitted periodically? How does the algorithm switching impact the communication metrics (in terms of delay)? Is the "energy-aware key scheduling mechanism" implemented physically - is there a separate communication channel that transmits the battery level? How and is it secure? These aspects should be addressed in the paper - could an attacker use such an information? 

24. Did the authors choose AES-CCM instead of AES-GCM (Galois Counter Mode) because of hardware performance constraints?

25. Line 282: "When".

26. Check and fix the mistakes (capital letters) on lines 284, 286, 293, 294, 297, 305, 321, 322, 323, 327, 328, 373, 376, 386, 388, 389, 392, 395, 396, 398 and others...

27. Line 314 "While", "provides"; line 315 "The hybrid", line 316 "...while protecting...".

28. Please mention, in Section 3.3, what exact KDF the authors consider to use and whether is has a non-negligible impact on the performance of the scheme.

29. Rephrase the sentence at line 318.

30. Line 355: "serious".

31. If a UAV is compromised (without us knowing), then the keys are vulnerable for a short amount of time, before a revocation request is automatically (periodically) uploaded as a smart contract? Clarify this in Section 3.5 (how often are the smart contracts uploaded?).

32. Add some subsections for Section 4.

33. Reformat Table 15, there is some text overlap.

We strongly recommend the authors to read the entire paper again, perhaps also use an automatic proofing program, and then fix all the English language mistakes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript has many English mistakes and needs to be very well revised.

Author Response

Manuscript Title: A Novel Dual-Layer Quantum-Resilient Encryption for UAV–Cloud Communication Using Adaptive Lightweight Ciphers and Hybrid ECC–PQC

Manuscript ID: Computers-4035373

I would like to sincerely thank you for the time, effort, and expertise you dedicated to reviewing my manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the paper. I carefully considered each point you raised and revised the manuscript accordingly.

I am grateful for your thoughtful feedback, which not only strengthened this work but also provided me with valuable perspectives for my future research.

Thank you once again for your contribution and support.

All the revisions are included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript titled (A Novel Dual-Layer Quantum-Resilient Encryption for UAV–Cloud Communication Using Adaptive Lightweight Ciphers and Hybrid ECC–PQC) I would like to present my comments as follows:

1. The title is appropriate and accurately reflects the core concept of the paper.
2. The abstract is acceptable.
3. The introduction is clear and provides comprehensive coverage of UAV-related concepts.
4. The review of previous studies and related literature is generally adequate; however, the number of sources is quite limited. I recommend expanding this section by incorporating studies from a wider range of reputable sources.
5. The proposed methodology and the conclusion are well-structured and clearly presented.
6. The references, however, are not selected in an academically balanced or ethically appropriate manner. The authors have cited several of their own publications, which creates a concern regarding citation bias.

In conclusion, I recommend a major revision of the manuscript, including the following steps:

1. The authors should thoroughly revise the manuscript to address several grammatical issues, which appear to have resulted from over-reliance on AI tools.
2. The authors should substantially broaden the reference list by including citations from diverse and authoritative sources to better support their arguments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

After reviewing the manuscript titled (A Novel Dual-Layer Quantum-Resilient Encryption for UAV–Cloud Communication Using Adaptive Lightweight Ciphers and Hybrid ECC–PQC) I would like to present my comments as follows:

1. The title is appropriate and accurately reflects the core concept of the paper.
2. The abstract is acceptable.
3. The introduction is clear and provides comprehensive coverage of UAV-related concepts.
4. The review of previous studies and related literature is generally adequate; however, the number of sources is quite limited. I recommend expanding this section by incorporating studies from a wider range of reputable sources.
5. The proposed methodology and the conclusion are well-structured and clearly presented.
6. The references, however, are not selected in an academically balanced or ethically appropriate manner. The authors have cited several of their own publications, which creates a concern regarding citation bias.

In conclusion, I recommend a major revision of the manuscript, including the following steps:

1. The authors should thoroughly revise the manuscript to address several grammatical issues, which appear to have resulted from over-reliance on AI tools.
2. The authors should substantially broaden the reference list by including citations from diverse and authoritative sources to better support their arguments.

Author Response

Manuscript Title: A Novel Dual-Layer Quantum-Resilient Encryption for UAV–Cloud Communication Using Adaptive Lightweight Ciphers and Hybrid ECC–PQC

Manuscript ID: Computers-4035373

I would like to sincerely thank you for the time, effort, and expertise you dedicated to reviewing my manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the paper. I carefully considered each point you raised and revised the manuscript accordingly.

I am grateful for your thoughtful feedback, which not only strengthened this work but also provided me with valuable perspectives for my future research.

Thank you once again for your contribution and support.

All the revisions are included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Just two more small remarks:

1. In the first paragraph of Section 3.6 there are still a couple of words that should be lowercase: "consume", "without", "while"; same for the third paragraph in section 3.6: "continue", "conscious", "upholding" and "system". 
Please check the entire paper for words that should be lowercase (using an automatic proofing program).

2. Small typo in the Figure 2 caption: "Key-Management Architecture" instead of "Ky-Management Architecture".

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your time and careful review of my manuscript. Your detailed comments and constructive recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript’s clarity, structure, and overall quality. I have reviewed each remark thoroughly and revised the paper accordingly.

Thank you again for your valuable input and support. The revised manuscript, incorporating all changes, is attached for your reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Second review:

1. The authors did not address the comments concerning publication ethics and knowledge sharing, as they continue to cite a single author more than ten times.

Accordingly, I cannot recommend this paper for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

After reviewing the manuscript titled (A Novel Dual-Layer Quantum-Resilient Encryption for UAV–Cloud Communication Using Adaptive Lightweight Ciphers and Hybrid ECC–PQC) I would like to present my comments as follows:

1. The title is appropriate and accurately reflects the core concept of the paper.
2. The abstract is acceptable.
3. The introduction is clear and provides comprehensive coverage of UAV-related concepts.
4. The review of previous studies and related literature is generally adequate; however, the number of sources is quite limited. I recommend expanding this section by incorporating studies from a wider range of reputable sources.
5. The proposed methodology and the conclusion are well-structured and clearly presented.
6. The references, however, are not selected in an academically balanced or ethically appropriate manner. The authors have cited several of their own publications, which creates a concern regarding citation bias.

In conclusion, I recommend a major revision of the manuscript, including the following steps:

1. The authors should thoroughly revise the manuscript to address several grammatical issues, which appear to have resulted from over-reliance on AI tools.
2. The authors should substantially broaden the reference list by including citations from diverse and authoritative sources to better support their arguments.

 

Second review:

1. The authors did not address the comments concerning publication ethics and knowledge sharing, as they continue to cite a single author more than ten times.

Accordingly, I cannot recommend this paper for publication.

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your time and careful review of my manuscript. Your detailed comments and constructive recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript’s clarity, structure, and overall quality. I have reviewed each remark thoroughly and revised the paper accordingly.

Thank you again for your valuable input and support. The revised manuscript, incorporating all changes, is attached for your reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf