## 4 Results
### Scenario 1
#### 4.1.3 Comparative Analysis  
To provide a broader perspective on the impact of proposed solutions on the security of synchronization, a comparative analysis was conducted. Both scenarios in which victims employ the proposed dynamic algorithms and scenarios in which all parties use the same standard update rule were considered. This comparison highlights the effectiveness of the dynamic approaches in limiting the attacker's ability to synchronize with the communicating parties. The results are presented in Figure 4.  
The analysis consists of four parts, each corresponding to a different subset of tests. The first part, presented in Figure 4a shows that in all of the tests conducted within this scenario, the attacker achieved a lower percentage of synchronization when victims were using either dynamic_rows or dynamic_matrix, compared to the scenario where all parties were using the hebbian update rule. This observation is consistent with the results from the previously discussed tests. This leads to a conclusion that while hebbian-only synchronization may require fewer iterations or less time, the use of any of the proposed  
Figure 4: Attacker’s synchronization percent using different update rules with victims using proposed solutions compared to all parties using the same update rule–Scenario 1. (**a**) Only attacker using hebbianversus all parties using hebbian; (**b**) Only attacker using random walk versus all parties using random walk; (**c**) Attacker using random update rule versus all parties using hebbian; (**d**) Attacker using random update rule versus all parties using random walk. dynamic algorithms provides improved communication security for the victims. Therefore, if the communicating parties suspect that the attacker might employ the hebbian update rule, it is always more secure to adopt a dynamic algorithm-regardless of the combination of the parameters described in Scenario 1. A similar analysis on the random walk update rule is presented in Figure 4b. In this case, both dynamic algorithms outperformed all parties using the random walk scenario in only 41.67% of the tests. In 11.11% of the cases, only dynamic_matrix was more secure, while dynamic_matrix provides higher security in 16.66% of the cases. These results suggest that in most cases, employing either of the proposed dynamic algorithms yields better protection against an attacker utilizing the random walk rule. As such, even in less consistent scenarios, the use of dynamic algorithms remains a reasonable and often advantageous choice for enhancing communication security. If we compare scenarios in which victims use dynamic approaches, perform significantly worse in the means of synchronization security, compared to all parties using the hebbian update rule. The results for this part of the analysis is presented in Figure 4c. Both dynamic approaches performed better in 19.44% of the cases, in the same percentage of scenarios only dynamic_matrix was better, while dynamic_rows outperformed other algorithms only in 2.77% of cases. As the mean synchronization of the attacker was lower when all parties used the hebbian update rule in 55.56% of the cases, it may be more advantageous to rely on that algorithm when there is a reasonable suspicion that the attacker may know about dynamic rule selection and they also dynamically select their update rule. It should also be noted that the observed decrease in performance of the dynamic solutions can be attributed to the fact that the hebbian rule is the fastest learning algorithm among the most widely adopted ones, as discussed in Section 2.2.2 [45]. In the scenario where the attacker randomly selects the update rule, they consistently achieved a lower percentage of synchronization when the victims used either of the dynamic approaches, compared to the scenario in which all parties used the random walk update rule. As illustrated in Figure 4d, both dynamic_rows and dynamic_matrix outperformed the uniform random walk synchronization in 100% of the evaluated cases.