International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847

Comparative Study and Performance Analysis of Encryption in RSA, ECC and GoldwasserMicali Cryptosystems
Gururaja.H.S1, M. Seetha2, Anjan K Koundinya3, Shashank.A.M4 and Prashanth.C.A5
1

Assistant Professor, Department of Information Science & Engineering, B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore, India
2

Professor, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, G.Narayanamma Institute of Technology and Science, Hyderabad, India

Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, R.V. College of Engineering, Bangalore, India
4,5

Department of Information Science & Engineering, B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore, India

ABSTRACT
Today, the whole world is going wireless. The time has come to control gadgets like Smart Cards, PDAs and Mobile Phones remotely using new and faster cryptosystems. This paper helps to outline the key concepts of RSA, ECC and Goldwasser-Micali public-key cryptosystems giving a comparative study and performance analysis of encryption in these cryptosystems. The key considerations for choosing an encryption algorithm like encryption time, decryption time, throughput and ciphertext size with varying plaintext sizes are used as comparision metrics and the readings are used to record inferences.

Keywords: RSA, ECC, GM, Encryption, Decryption, Ciphertext, Plaintext

1. INTRODUCTION
Today, the world is growing fast with electronic revolution in our day-to-day life. In this environment, any information is available at the click of a mouse button. When information is available so freely in the web, there are people who might use this information against us. So it has become mandatory to check this behaviour and control the act of attack against us. This made people to think about a solution named Encryption [1], [3]. The process of Encryption is to convert your information into a form which cannot be read or understood by anyone.

Figure 1 Process of Cryptography Figure 1 shows the process of Cryptography which is the science of secrect sharing. Any character or alphabet we press on the keyboard is represented as a binary information. If the entire document is converted into binary information, just imagine how difficult it would be to recognize the information. In the process of encryption, we try to mix these binary numbers after performing a few mathematical operations which converts the huge set of binary information in a newer arrangement which is difficult to understand. The entire process of encryption is to perform mathematical operations on the text that scrambles the text binaries. This is done with the help of a key. Key acts as a parameter which is passed in the encryption function along with the text which needs to be encrypted. The process of encryption then generates a Ciphertext which is nothing but a coded information difficult for others to understand. This can be mathematically represented as Ciphertext = Encryption (Key, Plaintext) (1)

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 111

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Now the Ciphertext can be transmitted to any unsecure network. When it is received by the intended recepient, the Ciphertext is decrypted using a Decryption [1], [3] function and Key. This generates back the Plaintext. This can be mathematically represented as Plaintext = Decryption (Key, Ciphertext) (2)

Figure 2 Symmetric Key Encryption Figure 2 shows the process of Symmetric Key Encryption involving the use of a single key. The equations (1) and (2) gives us the method of generating Ciphertext and Plaintext in Symmetric Key Encryption.

Figure 3 Asymmetric/Public Key Encryption Figure 3 shows the process of Asymmetric Key Encryption or Public Key Encryption which involves the use of two distict keys one to encrypt and a different one to decrypt. This paper presents the evaluation of Rivest, Shamir, Adleman (RSA), Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) & Goldwasser-Micali (GM) asymmetric encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms plays a main role in any security system by providing a secure communication over the internet. These algorithms depend on resources such as memory, CPU time, battery power and computation time to encrypt and decrypt data. In this paper, different experiments have been conducted to compare these algorithms in terms of encryption time, decryption time, throughput and ciphertext size with varying plaintext sizes. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents Encryption in RSA, Section 3 presents Encryption in ECC, Section 4 presents Encryption in GM cryptosystem and Section 5 describes the parameters used for evaluation. Results are discussed in Section 6 and Section 7 concludes the research work.

2. ENCRYPTION IN RSA
Encryption

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 112

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
The RSA algorithm [1], [10], [12] is a public key encryption algorithm which relies on the generation of two large prime numbers, and on the fact that their product is difficult to factorize. The standard RSA algorithm is divided into the following steps: Step 1: Assume two large prime numbers p & q. Step 2: Compute N = p*q, where N is a factor of two large prime numbers. Step 3: Select an Encryption key E such that it is not a factor of the product (p-1)*(q-1) i.e., (n)= (p-1)*(q-1); for calculating encryption exponents, E should be 1< E < (n) such that gcd(E, (n))=1. Step 4: Select the Decryption key D, which satisfy the Equation D*E = 1 mod (n). Step 5: For Encryption: C=ME mod N, where C is Ciphertext, M is Message. Decryption M= CD mod N. Security The Secuirty of RSA mainly lies with the Selection of a large prime number, an Encryption Key and a Decryption Key. Factoring large numbers is not provably hard, but no algorithms exists today to factor a 200-digit number in a reasonable amount of time. The main feature of RSA algorithm is the selection of large prime number (p, q) because it is logical that fraction of large number is always typical and any users or force attackers could not be able to find the capable numbers, timely to force attack is shortly non-feasible. Advantages RSA's biggest advantage is that it uses Public Key encryption. This means that your text will be encrypted with someone's Public Key (which everyone knows about). However, only the person it is intended for can read it, by using their private key (which only they know about). Attempting to use the Public Key to decrypt the message would not work. RSA can also be used to "sign" a message, meaning that the recipient can verify that it was sent by the person they think it was sent by. Disadvantages A disadvantage of using public-key cryptography for encryption is speed. There are many secret-key encryption methods that are significantly faster than any currently available public-key encryption method. Nevertheless, public-key cryptography can be used with secret-key cryptography to get the best of both worlds. For encryption, the best solution is to combine public and secret-key systems in order to get both the security advantages of public-key systems and the speed advantages of secret-key systems. Public-key cryptography may be vulnerable to impersonation, even if users' private keys are not available.

3. ENCRYPTION IN ECC
Encryption Here, we essentially encode a message on the curve. Note that we cannot simply encode the message as the x or y coordinate of a point, because not all such coordinates are in Ep(a, b), where Ep(a, b) denotes the elliptic group mod p whose elements (x, y) are pairs of nonnegative integers less than p, satisfying: y2 = x3 + ax + b (mod p) As with the Key Exchange system, an Encryption/Decryption [4], [6], [8] system requires a point P and an elliptic group as parameters. Each user A selects a private key d and generates a public key as follows Q=d*P where d = The random number that we have selected within the range of 1 to (n-1). P is the point on the curve. Q is the public key and d is the private key.

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 113

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Consider m has the point M on the curve E. To encrypt and send a message M to B, A chooses a random positive integer k from 1 to (n-1) and produces the Ciphertext as a pair of points. Let the two points be Ca and Cb. The Ciphertext can be represented as Cm = { Ca, Cb } where Ca = k*P Cb = M + k*Q Cm will be sent. Important thing to note is that A has used Bs public key Q. Decryption To recover the message M, B multiplies the first point in the pair by Bs secret key and subtracts the result from the second point: M = Cb d * C a Security A has masked the message M by adding k*Q to it. Nobody but A knows the value of k, so even though Q is a public key, nobody can remove the mask k*Q. However, A also includes a clue, which is enough to remove the mask if one knows the private key d. For an attacker to recover the message, the attacker would have to compute k given P and k*P , which is hard. Advantages ECC employs a relatively short encryption key, a value that must be fed into the encryption algorithm to decode an encrypted message. This short key is faster and requires less computing power than other first-generation encryption public key algorithms. For example, a 160-bit ECC encryption key provides the same security as a 1024-bit RSA encryption key and can be up to 15 times faster, depending on the platform on which it is implemented. The advantages of ECC over RSA are particularly important in wireless devices, where computing power, memory and battery life are limited. Disadvantages One of the main disadvantages of ECC is that it increases the size of the encrypted message significantly more than RSA encryption. Furthermore, the ECC algorithm is more complex and more difficult to implement than RSA, which increases the likelihood of implementation errors, thereby reducing the security of the algorithm.

4. ENCRYPTION IN GM
Encryption Entities A and B create a public key and a corresponding private key for Encryption [2], [7], [9]. Each of these entities must: 1. Select two large distinct primes p & q. 2. Compute n = p*q 3. Select y Zn such that y is a quadratic non-residue modulo n and the Jacobi symbol y/n = 1 (y is a pseudo square modulo n). 4. As public key is (n,y) and As private key is the pair (p,q). B encrypts a message m for A, which A decrypts. B should do the following: (a) Obtain As authentic public key (n,y) (b) Represent the message m as a binary string m = m1m2mt of length t. (c) For i from 1 to t do: i. Choose x Zn ii. If mi = 1 then set ci y x2mod n, otherwise set ci x2mod n (d) Send the t-tuple c=(c1, c2, ct) to A. Decryption: To recover the message (m) from the ciphertext (c)

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 114

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
(a) For i from 1 to t do: i. Calculate the Legendre symbol ii. If ei = 1 then set mi 0; otherwise set mi 1 (b) m = m1 m2mt Proof ci = x2 mod n is a quadratic residue modulo n if a message bit mi is 0 ci = yx 2mod n is also a pseudosquare modulo n (since y is a pseudosquare modulo n) if a message bit mi is 1 ci is a quadratic residue modulo n if and only if ci is a quadratic residue modulo p. Since A knows p, she can compute this legendre symbol and hence recover the message bit mi. Security There is a simple reduction from breaking this cryptosystem to the problem of determining whether a random value modulo N with Jacobi symbol +1 is a quadratic residue. If an algorithm A breaks the cryptosystem, then to determine if a given value x is a quadratic residue modulo N, we test A to see if it can break the cryptosystem using (x,N) as a public key. If x is a nonresidue, then A should work properly. However, if x is a residue, then every "ciphertext" will simply be a random quadratic residue, so A cannot be correct more than half of the time. Furthermore, this problem is random self reducible, which ensures that for a given N, every public key is just as secure as every other public key. Advantages Because encryption is performed using a probabilistic algorithm, a given plaintext may produce very different ciphertexts each time it is encrypted. This has significant advantages, as it prevents an adversary from recognizing intercepted messages by comparing them to a dictionary of known ciphertexts. Disadvantages If the plaintext message has t bits, then the ciphertext is a t vector, each entry a value from Zn. Since n must be of the order of several hundred digits to prevent efficient factorization, this is a huge message expansion. This means that the message expansion is dependent on t rather than n.

5. EVALUATION PARAMETERS
The following parameters [1], [12] are considered for evaluation of RSA, ECC & GM asymmetric encryption algorithms for both encryption and decryption schemes. Encryption time (Computation Time/ Response Time) The encryption time is the time that an encryption algorithm takes to produce a ciphertext from a plaintext. Decryption time (Computation Time/ Response Time) The decryption time is the time that a decryption algorithm takes to reproduce a plaintext from a ciphertext. Throughput Throughput is equal to total plaintext in bytes encrypted divided by the encryption time. Higher the throughput, higher will be the performance. Plaintext Size Vs Ciphertext Size In any cryptographic algorithm, it is essential to understand the size of the input and the size of output. Larger the size of the Ciphertext compared with the Plaintext, more secure is the Ciphertext against any Brute-Force attack.

6. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

We have tested the implementation of RSA, ECC and GM cryptosystems seperately. The tests are done for the following parametric factors and the results are shown by the following graphs. 1. Plaintext Size Versus Ciphertext Size 2. Encryption Time

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 115

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
3. Decryption Time 4. Throughput Plaintext Size Vs Ciphertext Size Figure 4 shows the performance analysis of plaintext size Vs ciphertext size in RSA, ECC and GM cryptosystems. In any cryptographic algorithm, it is essential to understand the size of the input and the size of output as this is one of the important property of an avalanche effect [11]. Larger the size of the Ciphertext compared with the Plaintext, more secure is the Ciphertext against any Brute-Force attack. In this case, RSA, ECC and GM cryptosystems uphold this effect and there is no direct relationships between symbols in the Ciphertext to the symbols in the Plaintext (Statistical Analysis) [5].

Figure 4 Plaintext Size Vs Ciphertext Size in RSA, ECC & GM Cryptosystems Encryption Time Figure 5 shows the performance analysis of encryption time in RSA, ECC and GM cryptosystems. The encryption time has its paramount importance for varied plaintext sizes as this determines the time involved in converting plaintext into ciphertext. Here, we can observe that RSA and ECC cryptosystems take less time for encryption compared to GM cryptosystem for the given plaintext size.

Figure 5 Comparision of Encryption Time in RSA, ECC & GM Cryptosystems Decryption Time Figure 6 shows the performance analysis of decryption time in RSA, ECC and GM cryptosystems. The decryption time has its paramount importance for varied ciphertext sizes as this determines the time involved in converting ciphertext back to plaintext. Here, we can observe that RSA and ECC cryptosystems take less time for decryption compared to GM

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 116

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
cryptosystem for the given ciphertext size.

Figure 6 Comparision of Decryption Time in RSA, ECC & GM Cryptosystems Throughput Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows the performance analysis of throughput for the process of encryption and decryption in RSA, ECC and GM cryptosystems. We can observe that the throughput of ECC overtakes the throughput of RSA and GM cryptosystems.

Figure 7 Throughput of Encryption Process in RSA, ECC & GM Cryptosystems

Figure 8 Throughput of Decryption Process in RSA, ECC & GM Cryptosystems

7. CONCLUSIONS
This research work presents the comparison of RSA, ECC and GM cryptosystems in terms of encryption time, decryption time, throughput and ciphertext size with varying plaintext sizes. Different experiments were conducted on the mentioned parameters for comparison of these algorithms and the results concluded that ECC performed better in terms of encryption time and decryption time. Throughput is the most important parameter that demonstrates the performance of any algorithm. It is observed that the throughput of ECC is better compared to RSA and GM cryptosystems.

Acknowledgement
Gururaja.H.S. thanks M.S.Sudhi, Retired Professor and Head, Dept. of Electronics and Communication Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore for his guidance and constant support.

References
[1] Gururaja, H.S., Seetha, M., Koundinya, A.K., Design and Performance Analysis of Secure Elliptic Curve Cryptosystem, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 8, 2013.

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 117

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Alfred J. Menezes, Paul C. van Oorschot, and Scott A.Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography, 1996. Stallings, W., Cryptography and Network Security, 3rd edn., Pearson Publishing, London, 2006. Koblitz, N., Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems, Volume 48, Mathematics of Computation, 1987. Young, A., Malicious Cryptography, 1st edn., pp. 220240, Wiley Publishing, 2004. Gururaja, H.S., Seetha, M., Koundinya, A.K., A Practical Password based authenication using elliptic curve cryptography, Proceedings of International Conference on Convergence of Science and Engineering, 2010. [7] Shruthi R, Sumana P, Koundinya, A.K., Performance Analysis of Goldwasser-Micali Cryptosystem, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 7, 2013. [8] Wikipedia, Encryption, Decryption, Security, Advantages and Disadvantages in ECC, wikipedia.com [Online], Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_cryptography. [Accessed: Jan. 10, 2014]. [9] Wikipedia, Encryption, Decryption, Security, Advantages and Disadvantages in GM, wikipedia.com [Online], Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldwasserMicali_cryptosystem. [Accessed: Jan. 10, 2014]. [10] Wikipedia, Encryption, Decryption, Security, Advantages and Disadvantages in RSA, wikipedia.com [Online], Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_cryptosystem. [Accessed: Jan. 10, 2014]. [11] H. Feistel, W. A. Notz and J. L. Smith, Some cryptographic techniques for machine-to-machine data communications, Proceedings.of IEEE, pp. 15451554, 1975. [12] Priit Karu, Jonne Loikkanen, Practical Comparision of Fast Public-Key Cryptosystems, Tik-110.501 Seminar on Network Secrity, 2000. AUTHORS Gururaja.H.S has completed his Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Science and Master of Technology in Computer Networks from Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. from JNTU, Hyderabad in the field of Cryptography & Network Security and has around 8 years of teaching experience. Dr.M. Seetha has completed her Ph.D in Computer Science and Engineering in the area of image processing in December 2007 from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, India. She has a teaching experience of 19 years, presently working as a Professor at GNITS, Hyderabad. She is guiding 10 Ph.D scholars and her research interest includes image processing, neural networks, computer networks and data mining. She has published more than 50 papers in refereed journals and in the proceedings of National/International Conferences and Symposiums. She is the recipient of the AICTE Career Award for Young Teachers (CAYT) in FEB 2009 and received a grant upto 10.5 lakhs over a period of three years by AICTE, India. She is a reviewer for various International Journals and Conferences. She holds the Life Membership of Indian Society for Technical Education (ISTE) and The Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers (IETE). Anjan K. Koundinya has received his B.E degree from Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum, India in 2007 and his M.Tech degree in Department of Computer Science and Engineering, M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India. He has been awarded Best Performer PG 2010 and Rank holder for his academic excellence. His areas of research includes Network Security and Cryptography, Adhoc Networks and Mobile Computing. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. from VTU, Belgaum and working in RVCE as an Assistant Professor in the Dept. of CSE. Shashank.A.M is pursuing his Bachelors in Information Science and Engineering at BMS College of Engineering, Bangalore. His areas of interest include Networks, Cryptography and Operating Systems.

Prashanth.C.A is pursuing his Bachelors in Information Science and Engineering at BMS College of Engineering, Bangalore. His areas of interest include Cryptography and Web Technologies.

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Page 118