4.6 Article

Security Analysis and Improvement of an Image Encryption Cryptosystem Based on Bit Plane Extraction and Multi Chaos

期刊

ENTROPY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e23050505

关键词

information security; image encryption; security analysis; chosen-plaintext attack

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62071496]
  2. Shan Dong Province Nature Science Foundation [ZR2017MEM019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper analyzes the security issues in image encryption systems based on bit plane extraction and multi chaos, and proposes an improved algorithm that strengthens encryption by linking random sequences to ciphertext. The study demonstrates the vulnerability of the original encryption algorithm and the effectiveness of the proposed attack method.
This paper analyzes the security of image encryption systems based on bit plane extraction and multi chaos. It includes a bit-level permutation for high, 4-bit planes and bit-wise XOR diffusion, and finds that the key streams in the permutation and diffusion phases are independent of the plaintext image. Therefore, the equivalent diffusion key and the equivalent permutation key can be recovered by the chosen-plaintext attack method, in which only two special plaintext images and their corresponding cipher images are used. The effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed attack algorithm is verified by a MATLAB 2015b simulation. In the experiment, all the key streams in the original algorithm are cracked through two special plaintext images and their corresponding ciphertext images. In addition, an improved algorithm is proposed. In the improved algorithm, the generation of a random sequence is related to ciphertext, which makes the encryption algorithm have the encryption effect of a one time pad. The encryption effect of the improved algorithm is better than that of the original encryption algorithm in the aspects of information entropy, ciphertext correlation analysis and ciphertext sensitivity analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据