| Literature DB >> 32555325 |
Xingyuan Wang1, Nana Guan2, Hongyu Zhao2, Siwei Wang3, Yingqian Zhang4.
Abstract
As a kind of spatiotemporal chaos, coupled map lattice (CML) is widely applied into image encryption because of its advantages of more complex dynamical behavior and lower computational overhead. Firstly, this paper proposed a novel spatiotemporal chaos model (MCML) by mixing Logistic, Sine and Tent maps into CML map together. Beyond that, we also change the structure of CML and the coupling method in different lattices. Bifurcation diagram, Lyapunov exponents and NIST test are employed to measure the chaotic behaviors of the MCML system. Secondly, by applying MCML chaos, we design a new key binding and distribution rule, the improved diffusion scheme to encrypt image. Furthermore, the novel bit Z-scan scrambling method also be used to enhance the security of the encryption scheme. Finally, a large number of experimental results prove that our proposed scheme is suitable for image encryption and has high security against common attacks.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32555325 PMCID: PMC7299977 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66486-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Bifurcation diagram and space-time plot analysis.
Figure 2The Lyapunov exponents.
NIST test.
| Sub-tests | P-Value | Proportion | Pass/Fail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency Test | 0.699313 | 99/100 | Pass |
| Block Frequency Test (m = 128) | 0.834308 | 100/100 | Pass |
| Cumulative Sums Test-Forward | 0.534146 | 99/100 | Pass |
| Cumulative Sums Test-Reverse | 0.983453 | 99/100 | Pass |
| Runs Test | 0.289667 | 98/100 | Pass |
| Longest Run Test | 0.249284 | 100/100 | Pass |
| Discrete Fourier Transform Test | 0.096578 | 99/100 | Pass |
| Rank Test | 0.071177 | 99/100 | Pass |
| Non Overlapping Template Test (m = 9) | 0.971699 | 100/100 | Pass |
| Overlapping Template Test (m = 9) | 0.883171 | 95/100 | Pass |
| Universal Test | 0.455937 | 98/100 | Pass |
| Approximate Entropy Test (m = 10) | 0.474986 | 100/100 | Pass |
| Serial Test (m = 16) | 0.964295 | 100/100 | Pass |
| Random Excursions Test (x = −1) | 0.699313 | 56/56 | Pass |
| Random Excursions Variant Test (x = −1) | 0.455937 | 53/56 | Pass |
| Linear Complexity Test (M = 500) | 0.574903 | 100/100 | Pass |
Figure 3The Sort method.
Figure 4The procession of bit Z-scan scrambling method.
Figure 5The procession of the encryption scheme.
Figure 6The encryption and decryption results of Pepper.
Figure 7Sensitivity analysis.
Figure 8The difference of two encryption results with one pixel change.
Information entropy of ciphertexts.
| image | Plane | Cam | Pepper | Hill | Baboon | Barb | Bridge | Elaine |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information entropy | 7.9972 | 7.9971 | 7.9991 | 7.9992 | 7.9993 | 7.9993 | 7.9992 | 7.9993 |
The comparison in information entropies.
| Encryption methods | Information entropy |
|---|---|
| ref. [ | 7.9973 |
| ref. [ | 7.9975 |
| ref. [ | 7.9977 |
| ref. [ | 7.9973 |
| ref. [ | 7.9982 |
Figure 9The histograms of plaintexts and ciphertexts.
χ2 test analysis.
| Image | Plane | Cam | Pepper | Hill | Baboon | Barb | Bridge | Elaine |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plain | 157773 | 93282 | 216248 | 148041 | 259931 | 144839 | 144928 | 140650 |
| Cipher | 254 | 259 | 260 | 278 | 264 | 268 | 291 | 257 |
| Pass/Fail | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
Figure 10Correlation analysis.
Correlation analysis.
| Algorithm | Plaintext | Ciphertext | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizontal | Vertical | Diagonal | Horizontal | Vertical | Diagonal | ||
Our proposed algorithm | Plane | 0.9633 | 0.9615 | 0.9279 | 0.0013 | 0.0036 | 0.0014 |
| Cam | 0.9745 | 0.9838 | 0.9597 | 0.0044 | 0.0016 | 0.0008 | |
| Pepper | 0.9876 | 0.9888 | 0.9774 | 0.0003 | 0.0009 | 0.0019 | |
| Hill | 0.9730 | 0.9745 | 0.9527 | 0.0019 | 0.0007 | 0.0019 | |
| Baboon | 0.8601 | 0.7541 | 0.7231 | 0.0003 | 0.0051 | 0.0025 | |
| Barb | 0.8591 | 0.9590 | 0.8414 | 0.0037 | 0.0014 | 0.0003 | |
| Bridge | 0.9426 | 0.9305 | 0.9031 | 0.0001 | 0.0005 | 0.0001 | |
| Elaine | 0.9855 | 0.9837 | 0.9742 | 0.0011 | 0.0023 | 0.0020 | |
| ref. [ | 0.0009 | 0.0028 | 0.0027 | ||||
| ref. [ | 0.0033 | 0.0092 | 0.0055 | ||||
| ref. [ | 0.0113 | 0.0173 | 0.0099 | ||||
| ref. [ | 0.0007 | 0.0015 | 0.0014 | ||||
| ref. [ | 0.0013 | 0.0007 | 0.0019 | ||||
Figure 11Robustness analysis.
Differential attack analysis.
| Image | Plane | Cam | Pepper | Hill | Baboon | Barb | Bridge | Elaine |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCR (%) | 99.6292 | 99.5819 | 99.6034 | 99.6202 | 99.5964 | 99.6395 | 99.6033 | 99.6140 |
| UACI (%) | 33.3715 | 33.4868 | 33.4402 | 33.4399 | 33.4483 | 33.4652 | 33.5469 | 33.4082 |
Comparisons of differential attacks.
| Algorithm | ref. [ | ref. [ | ref. [ | ref. [ | ref. [ | Our proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean NPCR (%) | 99.6084 | 99.6025 | 99.6177 | 99.5842 | 99.6093 | |
| Mean UACI (%) | 33.4023 | 33.4937 | 33.6694 | 33.4936 | 33.4076 |
Comparisons of encryption time of 8-bit gray images for different size (in seconds).
| Image size | ref. [ | ref. [ | ref. [ | ref. [ | ref. [ | Our proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 128 × 128 | 0.29 | 0.052 | ||||
| 256 × 256 | 6.01 | <0.4 | 0.095 | 0.8342 | ||
| 512 × 512 | 35.59 | 1 | 0.497 | |||
| 1024 × 1024 | 253.88 | 3 | 2.513 |