Hybrid Chaotic-Based PRNG for Secure Cryptography Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some comments as: 

1. Please improve the abstract to point better to the scientific contribution and novelty of the proposal and insert already the quantitative data that demonstrate the benefits of your approach. 

2. Improve the introduction section to point better to the related works. Not only necessary to mention similar research. It is required to mention why your approach is different and explain from other research what is your scientific contribution and how you are going beyond state-of-the-art.  

3. The contribution of the paper is not clear. Most of the outcomes of these papers are expected based on the previous studies, but where is the contribution of this paper? 

4. To make the proposed algorithm of this article more readable use pseudo-code.  

5. Decryption algorithm of the suggested cryptosystem is not stated.  

6. In simulation results, the utilized initial conditions and control parameters need to be illustrated.

7. Where is the utilized dataset of images taken from?  

8. The key sensitivity is needed to be tested in quantity. 

9. In addition to histogram analysis, the chi-square test can be performed to validate the results statistically.  

10. Improve the quality of the figures and explain those properly.  

11. NPCR is a simplification for "Number of Pixels Change Rate", not "Net Pixel Change Rate". 

12. Time complexity analysis for image cryptosystem is not stated.  

13. Add future work in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Authors response is enclsoed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The keyspace in this article is small compared to other similar articles.                                            
2. Please compare the keyspace with similar articles.                                                                             
3. This paper does not perform key-sensitivity analysis and analysis against differential and noise attacks.                                                                                                                                                       
4. To publish this article, the author must give a convincing reason for choosing his simple proposed algorithm.                                                                                                                     
5. For the present study's accuracy, comparing the values in the tables with newer references should be corrected.                                                                                                             
6. In section 3.1, three sentences with the same meaning have been used, which are unnecessary.        
7.  In the results section of line 370, alpha values should be corrected.                                                  
8.  In line 355, 27 gray images have written, and in the results section, in line 372, 28 images are wrongly written.                                                                                                                              

1.       This manuscript must be corrected in terms of grammar.           

Author Response

Authors response is enclosed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Authors response is enclosed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This work should be revised well again as there are many mistakes in terms of: -  

1) In the abstract, insert the quantitative data demonstrating your approach's benefits. 

2) Are bird, lion, pyramids, and sphinx images belonging to the SIPI database? 

3) The related works session needs to be included. It is not only necessary to mention similar research. It is necessary to mention why your approach is different and explain from other research what is your scientific contribution and how you are going beyond the state of the art.  

4) The key sensitivity needs to be tested in quantity not visually, using NPCR between the decrypted image with the correct key and the decrypted images with the modified key.

Author Response

Response Review#1 is enclosed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors were able to give appropriate answers to the referees' questions and improve the quality of the article.

It is possible to improve the text.

Author Response

Response Review#2 is enclosed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

All my concerns have been addressed in the revision. Therefore, I'm giving my recommendation for acceptance of the manuscript.

Author Response

Response Review#3 is enclosed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The previous comments have been addressed.