Next Article in Journal
ASPDC: Accelerated SPDC Regularized Empirical Risk Minimization for Ill-Conditioned Problems in Large-Scale Machine Learning
Next Article in Special Issue
Improving Healthcare Applications Security Using Blockchain
Previous Article in Journal
Clustering-Based Decision Tree for Vehicle Routing Spatio-Temporal Selection
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Area-Optimized and Power-Efficient CBC-PRESENT and HMAC-PHOTON

Electronics 2022, 11(15), 2380; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11152380
by Chi Trung Ngo 1, Jason K. Eshraghian 2 and Jong-Phil Hong 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Electronics 2022, 11(15), 2380; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11152380
Submission received: 22 June 2022 / Revised: 18 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an efficient method for CBC-PRESENT and HMAC-PHOTON with 128-bit plaintext and 128-bit key by applying a feedback path in hardware structures to promote resource reuse. The paper is well organized and results are clearly presented. The proposed cryptography structures can be applied to information security SoC such as constrained IoT devices demanding small area and low power consumption. It would be good if the authors of the article make a detailed study of sweets in the field and systematize them in a separate section. There are also no prospects for the development of the work.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the reviewers' time and efforts to review the manuscript. The reviewers' comments have been invaluable to improve the presentation and the quality of the revised manuscript. We carefully considered the reviewers' comments, and their suggestions have been adopted in the revised manuscript. We believe that the revised manuscript. Is much easier to follow and its technical contributions are easier to understand. In the following, we describe our responses to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The MATLAB simulation test involved in the paper should be more detailed, such as supplementing the description of relevant figures and tables.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the reviewers' time and efforts to review the manuscript. The reviewers' comments have been invaluable to improve the presentation and the quality of the revised manuscript. We carefully considered the reviewers' comments, and their suggestions have been adopted in the revised manuscript. We believe that the revised manuscript. Is much easier to follow and its technical contributions are easier to understand. In the following, we describe our responses to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper introduces an area-optimized and power-efficient implementation of Cipher 1 Block Chaining (CBC) mode for an ultra-lightweight block cipher, PRESENT, and the Keyed-Hash 2 Message Authentication Code (HMAC) expanded PHOTON, by using a feedback path for a single 3 block in the scheme. An experimental analysis and comparison between a 5 conventional implementation of CBC-PRESENT/HMAC-PHOTON with the proposed feedback- 6 based is performed. The proposed CBC-PRESENT/HMAC-PHOTON with 128-bit plaintext/text 7 and 128-bit secret key have a gate count of 5683/20698 and low power consumption of 1.03/2.62 mW, 8 with a throughput of 182.9/14.9 Mbps at the maximum clock frequency of 100 MHz, respectively. The work is interesting, but some issues must be answered carefully.

1. Why CBC encryption and decryption is selected, while there exist various kinds of modes of operations?

2. What is the advantages of the proposed model?

3. Can the encryption and decryption methodology be broken with a cryptanalyst? How to avoid that?

4. Figure 13, 14, and 15 are not clear enough. Please try to enhance their quality?

5. Can the authors compare their work with other studies relevant to the same problem?

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the reviewers' time and efforts to review the manuscript. The reviewers' comments have been invaluable to improve the presentation and the quality of the revised manuscript. We carefully considered the reviewers' comments, and their suggestions have been adopted in the revised manuscript. We believe that the revised manuscript. Is much easier to follow and its technical contributions are easier to understand. In the following, we describe our responses to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be published in present form

Reviewer 3 Report

IT IS SUITALBE FOR PUBLICATION IN THE ELECTRONICS MDPI JOURNAL.

Back to TopTop