Table 2 State-of-the-art comparison of secure data transmission approaches.
From: A secure and imperceptible communication system for sharing co-ordinate data
Author and year | Algorithms used | Security achievements | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
Chen et al. (2024) | \(\bullet\) Deep autoencoder \(\bullet\) AES encryption | \(\bullet\) High compression \(\bullet\) AES-layered protection | \(\bullet\) Low imperceptibility under constrained bandwidth |
Fang & Li (2025) | \(\bullet\) Lightweight cryptographic protocol | \(\bullet\) Low latency \(\bullet\) IoT battlefield readiness | \(\bullet\) Lacks image-based concealment layer |
Verma et al. (2025) | \(\bullet\) LSB steganography \(\bullet\) Adversarial detector | \(\bullet\) High accuracy detection of LSB in satellite images | \(\bullet\) Demonstrates weaknesses of traditional LSB models |
Rustad et al. (2023) | \(\bullet\) Discrete wavelet transform (DWT) \(\bullet\) Huffman encoding | \(\bullet\) Moderate tamper resistance | \(\bullet\) High computational cost \(\bullet\) Poor suitability for real-time ops |
Rahman et al. (2023) | \(\bullet\) Multi-level encryption (MLE) \(\bullet\) LSB steganography | \(\bullet\) Good integrity \(\bullet\) Low computation cost | \(\bullet\) Poor scalability and image quality |
Proposed system | \(\bullet\) AES encryption \(\bullet\) Hash-based LSB \(\bullet\) Colour plane splicing | \(\bullet\) High imperceptibility (PSNR > 80 dB) \(\bullet\) Secure embedded key exchange \(\bullet\) Scalable payload | \(\bullet\) Requires access to a large image set \(\bullet\) Multi-image sync adds processing load |
