Output.txt

This work presents a very good performance evaluation of using the LabVIEW 2016 program as a
simulation design system to perform two effective comparison methods, as explained below:
 The first comparison is made between the two evaluation methods: The LabVIEW 2016 simulation
design program and advanced encryption package 2017 program. The LabVIEW 2016 simulation design
provides a simple approach to calculate the values of encryption and decryption times for the chosen
cryptographic algorithms (AES, DES, 3DES, RC2 and RSA). It had many advantages over the advanced
encryption package 2017 program in both of the total time required to complete the encryption and
decryption processes, and in calculating the evaluated time of a cryptographic algorithm during
encryption and decryption processes, because it consumed lesser time, besides, the time of encryption
and decryption processes can be achieved with an one run command, while in advanced encryption
package 2017 program, it must apply two runs commands, one for encryption process and the other for
decryption process.
 In LabVIEW 2016 simulation design, the front panel window provided the full information about
encryption and decryption processes including the value of execution time, original text file, the resulted
encrypted text file, the resulted decrypted text file, the algorithm’s key and its size. This facility is not
found in advanced encryption package 2017 program.
 Finally, In LabVIEW 2016 simulation design,et all the possible key’s values for any algorithm
and this facility can achieve all the experimental statuses, while the advanced encryption package 2017
program gave only limited keys’ sizes for each algorithm.
 The second compassion is among the five encryption algorithms. From the simulation results of
LabVIEW 2016 program and the obtained results of advanced encryption package 2017 program, both,
showed that the AES is the fastest encryption technique among the others in term and
throughput and the lowest one in terms of power consumption, i.e. we can get a higher efficiency with
lower time in spite of the design complexity of AES-256, because it can encrypt a 128-bit block cipher
(which is the biggest block cipher for cryptographic algorithms) in 14 rounds only. DES had the second
better performance during encryption and decryption processes, while 3DES and RC2 the same
performance level. Finally, RSA had the lowest performance level in terms of speed and throughput.