Table 1:
Literature review summary
| Authors | Methodology | Findings | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awotunde et al. [21] | TEA | Minimized encryption time while maintaining efficiency vs. security trade-off | Provides secure and efficient data security | Low battery life and limited memory capacity in IoT devices |
| Itoo et al. [23] | Privacy-preserving and efficient key agreement algorithm | Ensures secure data transmission among IoT devices in smart agriculture monitoring systems | Offers greater data protection | Implementation is complex and may require high computational resources |
| Abduljabbar et al. [23] | ECC-based data exchange algorithm | Enables secure data transmission between IoT devices | Reduces computation and implementation costs while improving security | Limited adaptability and scalability in large-scale deployments |
| Song et al. [24] | Low-energy lightweight block cipher framework | Minimizes data loss during sensor data transmission | Reduces latency and energy consumption | Cannot guarantee optimal security for data stored in the cloud |
| Pan et al. [25] | Lightweight channel authentication framework | Accurately differentiates between authentic and unauthorized users | Achieved 96.6% precision, 95.6% recall and 96.1% F-measure | Cannot prevent all types of security threats |
| Zhao et al. [26] | Reliable and fast data storage strategy using blockchain | Stores agricultural farm data rapidly | Reads farm data 10× faster than conventional methods | Does not consider cyber threats associated with IoT-based data storage |
| Berguiga et al. [27] | Multilayer perceptron and Gaussian mixture model-based intrusion detection framework | Predicts normal and abnormal traffic in smart agriculture accurately | Improved accuracy, recall, precision and F-measure for attack prediction | Limited to specific attacks (e.g., DDoS); cannot generalize to evolving cyber threats |
Table 2:
Dataset description
| Dataset | Class partition | Data points | Rate of class frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ToN-IoT training set | Backdoor | 14,135 | 4.35 |
| MITM | 727 | 0.21 | |
| DDoS | 13,971 | 4.32 | |
| DoS | 13,913 | 4.33 | |
| Injection | 14,071 | 4.34 | |
| Password | 14,017 | 4.37 | |
| Scanning | 14,100 | 4.29 | |
| XSS | 14,012 | 4.36 | |
| Ransomware | 13,992 | 4.32 | |
| Normal | 209,792 | 65.06 | |
| ToN-IoT testing set | Backdoor | 5,865 | 4.29 |
| MITM | 316 | 0.25 | |
| DDoS | 6,029 | 4.33 | |
| DoS | 6,087 | 4.36 | |
| Injection | 5,929 | 4.31 | |
| Password | 5,983 | 4.26 | |
| Scanning | 5,900 | 4.44 | |
| XSS | 5,988 | 4.28 | |
| Ransomware | 6,008 | 4.36 | |
| Normal | 90,208 | 65.06 |
Figure 1:
Proposed methodology. DRNN, dense recurrent neural network; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; FA, Firefly algorithm.
Figure 2:
Flowchart of the proposed framework.
Figure 3:
Performance analysis: (A) Accuracy, (B) loss.
Figure 4:
Comparison of accuracy. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 3:
Comparison of accuracy
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 97.3 | 97.9 | 96 | 97.8 | 97.3 | 97 | 99 |
| 150 | 96.9 | 97.6 | 96.6 | 97.2 | 96.9 | 96.5 | 98.67 |
| 200 | 96.5 | 97.1 | 97.6 | 97 | 96.5 | 96.2 | 98.4 |
| 250 | 96.4 | 96.8 | 97 | 96.5 | 96.4 | 95.8 | 98.1 |
| 300 | 96.1 | 96.5 | 97.4 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 95.4 | 97.9 |
| 350 | 95.7 | 96.3 | 96.2 | 96 | 95.7 | 95.3 | 97.75 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 4:
Comparison of precision
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 98.1 | 97 | 98.5 | 97 | 97.7 | 97.8 | 99.3 |
| 150 | 97.6 | 96.5 | 98.1 | 96.5 | 97.5 | 97.2 | 98.9 |
| 200 | 97.4 | 96.2 | 97.7 | 96.2 | 97.2 | 97 | 98.6 |
| 250 | 97.1 | 95.8 | 97.3 | 95.8 | 96.9 | 96.5 | 98.5 |
| 300 | 96.7 | 95.4 | 97.0 | 95.4 | 96.5 | 96.3 | 98.3 |
| 350 | 96.5 | 95.3 | 96.8 | 95.3 | 96.1 | 96 | 98.0 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Figure 5:
Comparison of precision. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 5:
Comparison of recall
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 98.1 | 97.2 | 98 | 96 | 97.3 | 97.2 | 99.7 |
| 150 | 97.6 | 96.5 | 98.1 | 96.5 | 97.5 | 97.2 | 99 |
| 200 | 97.4 | 96.2 | 97.7 | 96.2 | 97.2 | 97 | 98.9 |
| 250 | 97 | 95.8 | 97 | 95.8 | 96.9 | 96.5 | 98.2 |
| 300 | 96.4 | 95 | 97 | 94.4 | 96.5 | 96 | 98.3 |
| 350 | 96.5 | 95 | 96.8 | 95.4 | 96.2 | 96 | 98 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Figure 6:
Comparison of recall. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 6:
Comparison of F-measure
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 97.3 | 97.1 | 96 | 98.1 | 97.7 | 97.4 | 98.5 |
| 150 | 97.0 | 96.7 | 98.1 | 97.6 | 97.5 | 97.2 | 98.3 |
| 200 | 96.8 | 96.5 | 95 | 95.4 | 97.5 | 96 | 98.0 |
| 250 | 97.3 | 97.1 | 95 | 97.8 | 97.9 | 97.3 | 99 |
| 300 | 96.5 | 95 | 95.4 | 97.2 | 97.6 | 96.9 | 98.67 |
| 350 | 95 | 95 | 95 | 97 | 97.1 | 96.5 | 98.4 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Figure 7:
Comparison of F-measure. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 7:
Comparison of energy consumption
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 6.5 | 8.4 | 11.6 | 7 | 11.2 | 6 | 3.2 |
| 150 | 6 | 4.9 | 7.4 | 5.7 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 3 |
| 200 | 8.6 | 5 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 5 | 4.2 |
| 250 | 6 | 6.5 | 7 | 5.8 | 7.9 | 7 | 5.1 |
| 300 | 4.8 | 6 | 4.9 | 8 | 5 | 5.0 | 4 |
| 350 | 7 | 7.8 | 5.9 | 7.4 | 5.8 | 7 | 4.4 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Figure 8:
Comparison of energy consumption. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 8:
Comparison of delay
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 3 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0.8 |
| 150 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 2.10 | 3.10 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| 200 | 5 | 4 | 4.6 | 3 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 2.0 |
| 250 | 3.8 | 7 | 2.9 | 3 | 6 | 4.0 | 2.8 |
| 300 | 5 | 5.7 | 4.5 | 3.9 | 6.8 | 5.6 | 4.2 |
| 350 | 2 | 4.7 | 4 | 6 | 3.9 | 3 | 1.7 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Figure 9:
Comparison of delay. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 9:
Comparison of time consumption
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 5 | 2.7 | 3 | 4.5 | 5 | 4 | 2 |
| 150 | 8.6 | 5 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 5 | 4.2 |
| 200 | 6 | 6.5 | 7 | 5.8 | 7.9 | 7 | 5.1 |
| 250 | 8.6 | 5 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 5 | 4.2 |
| 300 | 6 | 6.5 | 7 | 5.8 | 7.9 | 7 | 5.1 |
| 350 | 6.5 | 8.4 | 11.6 | 7 | 11.2 | 6 | 3.2 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Figure 10:
Comparison of time consumption. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Table 10:
Comparison of data confidentiality rate
| Data size (kb) | IBLWC | ECC | SKC | E3LCM | BC-LWCIE | AKC | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.98 |
| 150 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.97 |
| 200 | 0.90 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.95 |
| 250 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| 300 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.97 |
| 350 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.94 | 0.96 |
[i] AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.
Figure 11:
Comparison of data confidentiality rate. AKC, asymmetric key cryptography; BC-LWCIE, blockchain-enabled secure optimal lightweight cryptography-based image encryption; E3LCM, enhanced energy-efficient lightweight cryptography method; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; IBLWC, IoT-blockchain light-weight cryptographic; SKC, symmetric key cryptography.