Intelligent Adaptive Optimisation Method for Enhancement of Information Security in IoT-Enabled Environments
<p>Information system security taxonomy of smart applications.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Proposed model of the security overview of smart applications.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Proposed model of the security layer architecture.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Flowchart of the proposed algorithm.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Information security framework: mumber of generations versus fitness value.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Information security framework: number of generations versus fitness value of e-commerce.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Information security framework: number of generations versus fitness value of the confidentiality of data.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Information security framework: number of generations versus fitness value of the integrity of data.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Information security framework: number of generations versus fitness value of the availability of data.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Information security framework: number of generations versus fitness value of the authentication of data.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Data confidentiality in terms of the number of generations in three dimensions.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Data integrity in terms of the number of generations in three dimensions.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Data availability in terms of the number of generations in three dimensions.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>Data authentication in terms of the number of generations in three dimensions.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Problem Statement
- Security keeps up with the impressive advancements being made in the field of information systems [19]. Intelligent attacks in the IoT environment are viable by sending malicious requests and responses. As a result, it is necessary to safeguard the information by recognising the assaults before they are carried out.
- Most existing techniques are based on non-continuous functions, which increases the complexity of optimisation algorithms [10,11,12,13,20,21,22]. In contrast, the proposed method is based on the new automatic adaptation-based strategy, which is incorporated with DE to overcome the searching strategy, which reduces time complexity and provides diversity and convergence rate.
- The methods available in the literature [5,19,23,24,25,26], when applied in the e-commerce application of information systems, are found to be insecure in terms of confidentiality, authenticity, availability, and integrity. In comparison, the proposed method optimises the best fitness function of the different generations of e-commerce applications, achieving better confidentiality, authenticity, availability, and integrity.
1.2. Author’s Contribution
- A novel adaption-based strategy is devised and incorporated with the DE algorithm to identify the request of the malicious node to mitigate security attacks.
- The devised mutation operator considers the environment factor, i.e., an internal environment that maintains the diversity in an initial generation and gives impetus to the convergence speed of the DE algorithm.
- In the performance analysis of confidentiality, integrity, authentication, and availability, the proposed approach is tested on an e-commerce application.
- The observed result shows that the proposed approach obtains a better solution in terms of best, average, and worst fitness functions on a 3-dimension application-based test.
1.3. Article Organisation
2. Literature Review
- The modern information system not only requires the robust protection of data but also needs to identify the malicious attacks that will breach security.
- The optimisation technique-based threat identification systems are now evolving. This technique can be used in information systems to maintain the integrity, authenticity, confidentiality, and availability of data. However, the existing methods suffer from the diversity issue in finding the optimal solution (threats) to secure the system.
- The second issue with the existing optimisation technique is the non-constraints solution, hence delaying the search capability to identify the optimal solution. It also causes the local optimal problem in finding the optimal solution.
- The tuning of security parameters in optimisation techniques is complex when identifying malicious attacks on data.
3. Related Terminologies of the Proposed Work
3.1. Deployment Scenario
3.2. Layered Stack of Information Security Model
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Materials
4.2. Proposed Method
4.2.1. Initialisation
4.2.2. Agile Adaption-Based Operators (AABO)
4.2.3. Generation of New Donor Vector(DV)
4.3. The Proposed Algorithm
Algorithm 1: Proposed DE-Based Evolutionary Algorithm |
4.4. Algorithm of Information Security Model
- In step 1, the initial input of data requests and data responses of the e-commerce-based application are determined.
- In the second step, the newly obtained vector from various constraint functions is added to the population.
- Afterward, weights assigned to each objective function are done using Equation (13).
- Finally, Step x.1 to Step x.6 are iterated to find optimum solution for , , etc.
Algorithm 2: Proposed Information Security-Based Evolutionary Algorithm |
4.5. System Model: Objectives Function of Information Security Model
- (I)
- Confidentiality of Data (CONF): The first objective (C1), the confidentiality of the system is represented as CONF(, ). Information requests and data responses are transmitted between requesting and responding nodes. The C1 in terms of cost is obtained by applying Equation (9):
- (II)
- Integrity of Data (INT): The second objective (C2) is calculated in terms of modifying data communication per unit time of node using Equation (10):
- (III)
- Availability of Data (AVL): The third objective is the availability of data services within the e-commerce framework. In terms of the availability of data from the server or cloud, the third objective (C3) is computed as follows: Equation (11):
- (IV)
- Authentication of Data (AUTH): The third objective is the authenticity of data services within the e-commerce framework. In terms of the authenticity of data from nodes, the third objective (C4) is computed as follows: Equation (12):
4.6. Formulation of Fitness Function of Information System
5. Experimentation and Analysis
5.1. Simulation Framework
- The test-bed was conducted using a Windows 10 Pro 64-bit operating system, an Intel Core i7-8850H processor, and 8 GB of RAM.
- Every benchmark serves as a test-bed in the specified search space, which is , with D standing for dimension.
- For the comparative analysis, the proposed algorithm is computed 30 times, with the best, average, and worst fitness functions.
- Each test function’s initial population is set at 100. For the maximising the problem, the exploration and exploitation phases are carried out across it.
5.2. Experimental Setup
5.3. Comparison of Fitness Function of the Proposed Work with Referenced Methods
5.4. Result Analysis of IoT-Enabled Application
5.4.1. Result Analysis of the Confidentiality
5.4.2. Result Analysis of the Integrity
5.4.3. Result Analysis of the Availability of Information System
5.4.4. Result Analysis of the Authentication of Information System
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Feng, B.; Zhou, H.; Li, G.; Zhang, Y.; Sood, K.; Yu, S. Enabling Machine Learning with Service Function Chaining for Security Enhancement at 5G Edges. IEEE Netw. 2021, 35, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, B.; Tian, A.; Yu, S.; Li, J.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, H. Efficient Cache Consistency Management for Transient IoT Data in Content-Centric Networking. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 12931–12944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N.; Prabhjot; Kaur, H. A Review of Information Security using Cryptography Technique. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. 2017, 8, 323–326. [Google Scholar]
- Preneel, B. Understanding Cryptography: A Textbook for Students and Practitioners; Springer: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, J.; Lindell, Y. Introduction t:o Modern Cryptography; Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rainer, S.; Price, K. Differential Evolution—A Simple and Efficient Adaptive Scheme for Global Optimization Over Continuous Spaces; International Computer Science Institute: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Bili, C.; Lin, Y.; Zeng, W.; Zhang, D.; Si, Y.-W. Modified differential evolution algorithm using a new diversity maintenance strategy for multi-objective optimization problems. Appl. Intell. 2015, 43, 49–73. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Q.; Chen, W.; Jiang, T.; Shen, D.; Gao, S. Handling Multiobjectives with Adaptive Mutation Based ϵ-Dominance Differential Evolution. ICSI-CCI 2015, 9140, 523–532. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, S.P. Improved based Differential Evolution Algorithm using New Environment Adaption Operator. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B 2021, 103, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P.S.; Kumar, A. Pareto Based Differential Evolution with Homeostasis Based Mutation. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 32, 3245–3257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Du, W.; Qian, F. Multi-objective differential evolution with ranking-based mutation operator and its application in chemical process optimization. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2014, 136, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Tian, Y.; Cheng, R.; Jin, Y. An efficient approach to nondominated sorting for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2015, 19, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deb, K.P.; Agarwal, A.; Meyarivan, T.S. A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leandro, L.M.; Xin, Y. Software Effort Estimation as a Multi-objective Learning Problem. Acm Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. TOSEM 2013, 22, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, S.P.; Kumar, A. Software cost estimation using homeostasis mutation based differential evolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO), Coimbatore, India, 5 January 2017; pp. 173–181. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, S.P.; Singh, V.P.; Mehta, A.K. Differential evolution using homeostasis adaption based mutation operator and its application for software cost estimation. J. King Saud-Univ. Inf. Sci. 2021, 33, 740–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Y.Y.; Jiao, Y.C.; Li, H.; Wang, X.K. A modification to MOEA/D-DE for multiobjective optimization problems with complicated Pareto sets. Inf. Sci. 2012, 213, 14–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beed, R.; Roy, A.; Sarkar, S.; Bhattacharya, D. A hybrid multiobjective tourroute optimization algorithm based on particle swarm optimization and artificial bee colony optimization. Comput. Intell. 2020, 36, 884–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lincke, S.; Hollan, J.A. Network Security: Focus on Security, Skills, and Stability. In Proceedings of the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 10–13 October 2007; p. F1D-10. [Google Scholar]
- Bader, J.; Zitzler, E. HypE: An algorithm for fast hyper volume-based many-objective optimization. Evol. Comput. 2011, 19, 45–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ganesan, R.; Jajodia, S.; Cam, H. Optimal scheduling of cybersecurity analysts for minimizing risk. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2017, 8, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganesan, R.; Shah, A.; Jajodia, S.; Cam, H. Optimizing alert data management processes at a cyber security operations center. In Adversarial and Uncertain Reasoning for Adaptive Cyber Defense; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 206–231. [Google Scholar]
- Khalifa, O.O.; Islam, M.R.; Khan, S.; Shebani, M.S. Communications cryptography. In Proceedings of the RF and Microwave Conference, Selangor, Malaysia, 5–6 October 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Jirwan, N.; Singh, A.; Vijay, S. Review and Analysis of Cryptography Techniques. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2013, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Callas, J. The Future of Cryptography. Inf. Syst. Secur. 2007, 16, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massey, J.L. Cryptography—A selective survey. Digit. Commun. 1986, 85, 3–25. [Google Scholar]
- Das, S.; Mullick, S.; Suganthan, P.N. Recent advances in differential evolution—An updated survey. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2016, 27, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawat, S.S.; Singh, S.; Alotaibi, Y.; Alghamdi, S.; Kumar, G. Infrared Target-Background Separation Based on Weighted Nuclear Norm Minimization and Robust Principal Component Analysis. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anuradha, D.; Subramani, N.; Khalaf, O.I.; Alotaibi, Y.; Alghamdi, S.; Rajagopal, M. Chaotic Search-and-Rescue-Optimization-Based Multi-Hop Data Transmission Protocol for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors 2022, 22, 2867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramasamy, V.; Alotaibi, Y.; Khalaf, O.I.; Samui, P.; Jayabalan, J. Prediction of groundwater table for Chennai Region using soft computing techniques. Arab. J. Geosci. 2022, 15, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sennan, S.; Kirubasri; Alotaibi, Y.; Pandey, D.; Alghamdi, S. EACR-LEACH: Energy-aware cluster-based routing protocol for WSN based IoT. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2022, 72, 2159–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneier, B. The Non-Security of Secrecy. Commun. ACM 2004, 47, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chachapara, K.; Bhadlawala, S. Secure sharing with cryptography in cloud. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Engineering (NUiCONE), Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India, 28–30 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Alotaibi, Y. A New Meta-Heuristics Data Clustering Algorithm Based on Tabu Search and Adaptive Search Memory. Symmetry 2022, 14, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, G.; Tomar, P. A Stateless Spatial IPv6 Address Configuration Scheme for Internet of Things. IETE J. Res. 2021, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orman, H. Recent Parables in Cryptography. IEEE Internet Comput. 2014, 18, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gennaro, R. Randomness in cryptography. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2006, 4, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bharany, S.; Sharma, S.; Badotra, S.; Khalaf, O.I.; Alotaibi, Y.; Alghamdi, S.; Alassery, F. Energy-Efficient Clustering Scheme for Flying Ad-Hoc Networks Using an Optimized LEACH Protocol. Energies 2021, 14, 6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preneel, B. Cryptography and Information Security in the Post Snowden Era. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Technical and Legal aspects of data privacy and Security, Florence, Italy, 18 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H.; Duncklee, A.; Jajodia, S.; Liu, R.; Mcnamara, S.; Subrahmanian, V.S. PCAM: A Data-driven Probabilistic Cyber-alert Management Framework. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 2022, 22, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Zhou, A.; Gong, M.; Jiao, L. Adaptive Replacement Strategies for MOEA/D. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2016, 46, 474–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Existing Method | Year | Approach | Gap |
---|---|---|---|
[7] | 2015 | The proposed method provides sufficient diversity for search space. | This approach is better in performance, but it suffers from the lack of convergence rate. |
[8] | 2015 | The proposed method was the design and implementation of the new mutation operator. | This approach was not satisfactory for some multi-objective problems. |
[9] | 2022 | The proposed method designs a new operator called the environment mutation operator. This operator helps to enhance the diversity and convergence rate. | This approach is better in performance, but some benchmark functions do not provide good diversity. |
[10] | 2017 | The proposed method designs a new mutation strategy called the homeostasis mutation operator. This operator found the first-ranking Pareto front. | The homeostasis operator provides sufficient diversity in the ZDT series, but it does not sufficiently provide the DTLZ series. |
[11] | 2014 | The proposed algorithms design the new swarm optimisation algorithm. This algorithm achieves the best optimum value from search space. | On some benchmark functions, the performance of this method is limited. |
[12] | 2015 | This work proposed a new strategy called the whale optimisation algorithm. This approach provided a convergence rate according to the swarm behaviour for global search space. | This approach performs better on some benchmark functions. However, its convergence rate is not satisfactory. |
[13] | 2002 | The proposed work designed a new operator called the dynamics-based control parameter. This parameter enhanced the convergence rate and diversity for a given search space. | The proposed method performs better, but its diversity and convergence rate are unsatisfactory. |
[21] | 2017 | Optimisation model to schedule the malicious risk according to high to low risk. It also maximises alert coverage. | Its performance is limited to a specific application. |
[22] | 2019 | Proposed an integrated framework to alert and schedule the risk at cyber security Data canter. | Its performance is limited to a specific application. |
[2] | 2009 | The proposed work designs a firewall technology. The purpose of this method is the protection of information from the attack of malicious systems. | The accuracy of identifying the high-risk attack is limited. |
[40] | 2022 | It has proposed a probabilistic cyber attack alert management system by formulating the problem as a bi-level non-linear optimization problem. It solves complex issues with a linear solution. | Complexity is high, and performance is also limited. |
[33,36,37,39,41] | 2013, 2014, 2006, 2015 | AES, RSA, cryptography (MD5), randomness in cryptography, attacks on cryptography | These methods do not deal with identifying attacks but rather encrypt them from unauthorised access. |
Sr. No. | Parameter Name | Description of Terminology Used | Defined Value and Syntax |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Population (Pop) | Population size | 100 |
2 | objective (obj) | Number of four objectives | CONF, INT, AUTH, and AVL |
3 | Search space(s) | Decision variable(s) | Search area |
4 | Gen | Number of iterations or generations | 50 to 500 |
5 | Mutant value | Mutant value (0.23 to 1.4) | |
6 | 2-D | Two-dimension-based scenario | 2-Dimension |
7 | 3-D | Three-dimension-based scenario | 3-Dimension |
8 | Crossover rate (Cr) | Enhanced the convergence rate | Cr (0.2 to 0.5) |
9 | IE1 | Enhanced the convergence rate of search environment | rand (0, 1) |
Sr. No. | Parameter | Type |
---|---|---|
1 | DE algorithm environmental factor1 [EF1] | rand (0, 1) |
2 | DE algorithm environmental factor2 [EF2] | rand (0.01–0.5) |
3 | DE algorithm scale factor () | (0.2–1.8) |
4 | DE algorithm crossover Rate (Cr) | (0.1–0.8) |
5 | Dimension (D) | (3) |
6 | Function evaluations | 100 to 500 |
7 | Number of iteration | 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 |
8 | Search space | (100, −100) |
9 | Number of runs | 30 |
10 | Experimental matrix area | () |
11 | Smart information system | |
12 | & | Objective function of smart information security |
13 | Number of requests from nodes | |
14 | Number of requests from malicious nodes | |
15 | Smart information system framework | |
16 | Identification service | |
17 | Types of services of smart agriculture | |
18 | The serviceability of the different devices or objects | |
19 | The service request of the confidentiality from nodes | |
20 | The service request modified from nodes | |
21 | The service request of the authentication from nodes | |
22 | The service request from the nodes |
Generation | PSO Algo | WOA Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 3.255923 | 2.604738 | 2.282857 | 1.302369 | 3.880856 | 3.228611 |
100 | 3.261224 | 2.608979 | 2.155006 | 1.304489 | 3.663509 | 3.047794 |
150 | 3.078579 | 2.462864 | 1.903279 | 1.231432 | 3.235574 | 2.69178 |
200 | 2.718969 | 2.175176 | 1.75754 | 1.087588 | 2.987818 | 2.485664 |
500 | 2.510772 | 2.008617 | 1.61754 | 1.004309 | 2.749818 | 2.287664 |
300 | 2.310772 | 1.848617 | 1.600538 | 0.924309 | 2.720914 | 2.263618 |
350 | 2.286483 | 1.829186 | 1.495925 | 0.914593 | 2.543073 | 2.115666 |
400 | 2.137036 | 1.709629 | 1.493396 | 0.854815 | 2.538773 | 2.112089 |
450 | 2.133423 | 1.706738 | 1.465396 | 0.853369 | 2.491173 | 2.072489 |
500 | 2.093423 | 1.674738 | 1.465396 | 0.837369 | 2.491173 | 2.072489 |
Generation | DE Algo | Proposed Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 2.289705 | 1.940428 | 2.522556 | 4.304815 | 2.716599 | 2.833025 |
100 | 2.161471 | 1.831755 | 2.381281 | 4.063725 | 2.564457 | 2.674362 |
150 | 1.908988 | 1.617787 | 2.103123 | 3.58904 | 2.264902 | 2.361969 |
200 | 1.762813 | 1.493909 | 1.942082 | 3.314219 | 2.091473 | 2.181107 |
500 | 1.622393 | 1.374909 | 1.787382 | 3.050219 | 1.924873 | 2.007367 |
300 | 1.605339 | 1.360457 | 1.768594 | 3.018157 | 1.90464 | 1.986267 |
350 | 1.500413 | 1.271537 | 1.652998 | 2.820888 | 1.780151 | 1.856444 |
400 | 1.497876 | 1.269387 | 1.650203 | 2.816118 | 1.777141 | 1.853304 |
450 | 1.469792 | 1.245587 | 1.619263 | 2.763318 | 1.743821 | 1.818556 |
500 | 1.469792 | 1.245587 | 1.619263 | 2.763318 | 1.743821 | 1.818556 |
Generation | PSO Algo | WOA Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 2.093423 | 1.674738 | 1.451396 | 0.837369 | 1.233687 | 1.603793 |
100 | 2.073423 | 1.658738 | 1.437396 | 0.829369 | 1.221787 | 1.588323 |
150 | 2.053423 | 1.642738 | 1.437396 | 0.821369 | 1.221787 | 1.588323 |
200 | 2.053423 | 1.642738 | 1.423396 | 0.821369 | 1.209887 | 1.572853 |
500 | 2.033423 | 1.626738 | 1.409396 | 0.813369 | 1.197987 | 1.557383 |
300 | 2.013423 | 1.610738 | 1.40587 | 0.805369 | 1.194989 | 1.553486 |
350 | 2.008386 | 1.606708 | 1.401741 | 0.803354 | 1.19148 | 1.548924 |
400 | 2.002487 | 1.60199 | 1.373456 | 0.800995 | 1.167438 | 1.517669 |
450 | 1.96208 | 1.569664 | 1.388596 | 0.784832 | 1.180307 | 1.534399 |
500 | 1.983709 | 1.586967 | 1.330955 | 0.793483 | 1.131312 | 1.470705 |
Generation | DE Algo | Proposed Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 1.45575 | 1.727161 | 1.801182 | 2.736918 | 2.467373 | 2.052689 |
100 | 1.441708 | 1.710501 | 1.783808 | 2.710518 | 2.443573 | 2.032889 |
150 | 1.441708 | 1.710501 | 1.783808 | 2.710518 | 2.443573 | 2.032889 |
200 | 1.427666 | 1.693841 | 1.766434 | 2.684118 | 2.419773 | 2.013089 |
500 | 1.413624 | 1.677181 | 1.74906 | 2.657718 | 2.395973 | 1.993289 |
300 | 1.410088 | 1.672985 | 1.744685 | 2.651069 | 2.389979 | 1.988302 |
350 | 1.405946 | 1.668072 | 1.739561 | 2.643283 | 2.38296 | 1.982462 |
400 | 1.377577 | 1.634413 | 1.704459 | 2.589946 | 2.334876 | 1.94246 |
450 | 1.392762 | 1.652429 | 1.723248 | 2.618495 | 2.360613 | 1.963872 |
500 | 1.334948 | 1.583836 | 1.651715 | 2.5098 | 2.262623 | 1.88235 |
Generation | PSO Algo | WOA Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 0.692819 | 0.554255 | 0.470829 | 0.277128 | 0.800409 | 0.665887 |
100 | 0.672613 | 0.53809 | 0.462637 | 0.269045 | 0.786483 | 0.654301 |
150 | 0.66091 | 0.528728 | 0.458738 | 0.264364 | 0.779854 | 0.648786 |
200 | 0.65534 | 0.524272 | 0.45627 | 0.262136 | 0.775659 | 0.645296 |
500 | 0.651814 | 0.521451 | 0.445819 | 0.260726 | 0.757892 | 0.630515 |
300 | 0.636884 | 0.509507 | 0.437903 | 0.254754 | 0.744434 | 0.619319 |
350 | 0.625575 | 0.50046 | 0.436884 | 0.25023 | 0.742703 | 0.617879 |
400 | 0.62412 | 0.499296 | 0.436884 | 0.249648 | 0.742703 | 0.617879 |
450 | 0.62412 | 0.499296 | 0.434577 | 0.249648 | 0.73878 | 0.614616 |
500 | 0.620824 | 0.496659 | 0.420577 | 0.24833 | 0.71498 | 0.594816 |
Generation | DE Algo | Proposed Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 0.472242 | 0.400205 | 0.520266 | 0.887849 | 0.560287 | 0.584299 |
100 | 0.464025 | 0.393242 | 0.511214 | 0.872401 | 0.550538 | 0.574133 |
150 | 0.460114 | 0.389927 | 0.506905 | 0.865049 | 0.545898 | 0.569294 |
200 | 0.457639 | 0.387829 | 0.504178 | 0.860394 | 0.542961 | 0.566231 |
500 | 0.447156 | 0.378946 | 0.49263 | 0.840687 | 0.530524 | 0.553261 |
300 | 0.439216 | 0.372217 | 0.483882 | 0.825759 | 0.521104 | 0.543437 |
350 | 0.438195 | 0.371352 | 0.482757 | 0.823839 | 0.519892 | 0.542173 |
400 | 0.438195 | 0.371352 | 0.482757 | 0.823839 | 0.519892 | 0.542173 |
450 | 0.43588 | 0.36939 | 0.480207 | 0.819487 | 0.517146 | 0.53931 |
500 | 0.421838 | 0.35749 | 0.464737 | 0.793087 | 0.500486 | 0.521936 |
Generation | PSO Algo | WOA Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 1.901364 | 1.521091 | 1.350856 | 0.760546 | 1.607519 | 1.910496 |
100 | 1.929794 | 1.543836 | 1.318662 | 0.771918 | 1.569207 | 1.864964 |
150 | 1.883802 | 1.507042 | 1.178662 | 0.753521 | 1.402607 | 1.666964 |
200 | 1.683802 | 1.347042 | 1.374662 | 0.673521 | 1.635847 | 1.944164 |
500 | 1.963802 | 1.571042 | 1.110618 | 0.785521 | 1.321636 | 1.570731 |
300 | 1.586597 | 1.269278 | 1.345741 | 0.634639 | 1.601431 | 1.903262 |
350 | 1.922487 | 1.537989 | 1.193062 | 0.768995 | 1.419744 | 1.68733 |
400 | 1.704374 | 1.363499 | 1.331385 | 0.68175 | 1.584348 | 1.882958 |
450 | 1.901978 | 1.521583 | 1.188673 | 0.760791 | 1.414521 | 1.681123 |
500 | 1.698104 | 1.358484 | 0.484973 | 0.679242 | 0.577118 | 0.685891 |
Generation | DE Algo | Proposed Algo | ||||
Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | Best Fit Fun | Averge Fit Fun | Worse Fit Fun | |
50 | 1.354909 | 1.148228 | 1.492696 | 2.547329 | 2.296455 | 1.676412 |
100 | 1.322618 | 1.120862 | 1.457121 | 2.486619 | 2.241725 | 1.636459 |
150 | 1.182198 | 1.001862 | 1.302421 | 2.222619 | 2.003725 | 1.462719 |
200 | 1.378786 | 1.168462 | 1.519001 | 2.592219 | 2.336925 | 1.705955 |
500 | 1.11395 | 0.944025 | 1.227233 | 2.094309 | 1.888051 | 1.378277 |
300 | 1.349778 | 1.14388 | 1.487043 | 2.537682 | 2.287759 | 1.670064 |
350 | 1.196641 | 1.014103 | 1.318333 | 2.249774 | 2.028205 | 1.48059 |
400 | 1.335379 | 1.131677 | 1.47118 | 2.510611 | 2.263354 | 1.652248 |
450 | 1.192239 | 1.010372 | 1.313484 | 2.241498 | 2.020744 | 1.475143 |
500 | 0.486428 | 0.412227 | 1.535895 | 1.914521 | 1.824454 | 1.601852 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Singh, S.P.; Alotaibi, Y.; Kumar, G.; Rawat, S.S. Intelligent Adaptive Optimisation Method for Enhancement of Information Security in IoT-Enabled Environments. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013635
Singh SP, Alotaibi Y, Kumar G, Rawat SS. Intelligent Adaptive Optimisation Method for Enhancement of Information Security in IoT-Enabled Environments. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013635
Chicago/Turabian StyleSingh, Shailendra Pratap, Youseef Alotaibi, Gyanendra Kumar, and Sur Singh Rawat. 2022. "Intelligent Adaptive Optimisation Method for Enhancement of Information Security in IoT-Enabled Environments" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013635
APA StyleSingh, S. P., Alotaibi, Y., Kumar, G., & Rawat, S. S. (2022). Intelligent Adaptive Optimisation Method for Enhancement of Information Security in IoT-Enabled Environments. Sustainability, 14(20), 13635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013635