All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The reviewers are satisfied with the revision and so do I. I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript, and I am satisfied with the revision of the manuscript.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have addressed the concerns during the first round of review process.
The manuscript by the author still needs improvement, The presentation of data in the manuscript is not good. Lots of points are resolved by the authors in revision.
No comment
no comment
Refer to my previous comments
Now, this paper can be accepted for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors are advised to address all the concerns/comments given by the reviewers in the revised version.
No comment
No comment
no comment
The authors have made changes according to the reviewers comments. Now the manuscript is in a good shape and presentation. However, please check again the English. For example, sentence in the last paragraph of Section 2, line 188-189.
As for comparison to the proposed method, as shown in Table 1.
The authors proposed a method of improving DNP3 security by introducing BRC4 encryption. This combines Beaufort encryption, in which plain text is encrypted by applying a polyalphabetic substitution code based on the Beaufort table by subtracting keys in plain text, and RC4 encryption, a stream cipher with a variable-length key algorithm. Authors contribute to improving the security of data transmission and accelerating key generation. The work by the author is good and the presentation of data is also good.
Experiment design is explained well.
For Table 1 Hybrid security approach to data transmission
Which filter used by the author to find the studies for the comparison?
The author has done good work.
They should check grammatical errors in the manuscript.
The quality of images should be improved.
Tests are carried out by key space analysis, correlation coefficient analysis, information entropy analysis, visual analysis, and time complexity analysis.The results show that to secure encryption processes from brute force attacks, a key of at least 16 characters is necessary. IL data correlation values were IL1 = -0.010, IL2 = 0.006, and IL3 = 0.001, respectively, indicating that the proposed method (BRC4) is better than the Beaufort or RC4 methods in isolation. Meanwhile, the information entropy values from IL data are IL1 = 7.84, IL2 = 7.98, and IL3 = 7.99, respectively, likewise indicating that the proposed method is better than the Beaufort or RC4 methods in isolation. Both results also show that the proposed method is secure from MITM attacks. Visual analysis, using a histogram, shows that ciphertext is more significantly distributed than plaintext, and thus secure from MITM attacks. The time complexity analysis results show that the proposed method algorithm is categorized as linear complexity.
Visual analysis, using a histogram, shows that the distribution of the ciphertext is significantly 462more varied than the plaintext, and thus it is secure from MITM attacks. Time complexity 463analysis shows that the proposed method is categorized as linear complexity.
no comment
Findings will be useful in the foundations and evaluation of support systems . This version is good in this form but most of the recent references are missing and English of the article is also poor. Comparisons between methods are also missing. Further, please improve these portion, add some significance points of pros and cons of the work and revise the formatting of the references. After the critical revision, this paper can be accepted for publication.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.