MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400991984 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2024.070301

Application and Performance Evaluation of DES Data Encryption Algorithm in Computer Information Security Technology

2024· article· en· W4400991984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTechnology and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEncryptionComputer securityInformation securityConfidentialityFirewall (physics)Data securityComputer security modelCloud computing securityAlgorithmCloud computingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article delves into the application and performance evaluation of the Data Encryption Standard (DES) algorithm in computer information security technology. With the rapid development of information technology, information security issues are becoming increasingly prominent, especially in terms of confidentiality in data transmission and storage. In response to the inefficiency and increasingly complex security threats of traditional firewall technology, this article proposes a suggestion to use the DES algorithm as a more effective means of confidentiality. By evaluating and analyzing the performance of the DES algorithm in practical applications, the experimental results show that the DES algorithm performs well in maintaining encryption speed and decryption efficiency, but there are also some potential security vulnerabilities. This article aims to explore the application prospects of DES algorithm in the field of information security in depth, and propose improvement strategies to compensate for its security deficiencies. Our research will provide important references and insights for further development in the field of information security, helping to enhance the security and confidentiality of computer systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence PracticeSame topicTechnology and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207