MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095155522 · doi:10.1109/temc.2015.2390229

XOR Encryption Versus Phase Encryption, an In-Depth Analysis

2015· article· en· W2095155522 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Huo, Guang Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncryptionBitwise operationProbabilistic encryption40-bit encryptionMultiple encryptionComputer science56-bit encryptionWatermarking attackCiphertextAttribute-based encryptionAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceComputer networkPublic-key cryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Encryptions are used in almost all standards to ensure the confidentiality of the data. Encryptions can be and indeed are implemented in the different layers of a network protocol stack. Conventional encryption performs the bitwise XOR operation between one message bit and one key stream bit to generate one ciphertext bit. Huo et al. have recently proposed to provide confidentialities on the user data by performing the phase encryption on the time domain OFDM samples in LTE system. Phase encryption is performed on the modulated symbols, different from the bit level of XOR encryption, i.e., stream cipher encryption. In this paper, we extend their study. We first generalize the phase encryption to general communication systems independent of the underlying modulation scheme. Then, we formulate the mathematical models for XOR and phase encryptions. Based on our model, we compare these two encryption methods in terms of their security and encryption efficiency. We also show phase encryption can resist traffic analysis attack when implemented in the physical layer. Finally, we conduct simulations to compare the performance of these two methods in terms of their decoding symbol error rate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic CompatibilitySame topicCryptographic Implementations and SecurityFrench-language works237,207