## 2 Related Work
### Lightweight Encryption in the IoT  
IoT devices, characterized by limited energy, memory, and computational power, require lightweight encryption algorithms that balance efficiency and security. Numerous studies have explored these algorithms, including ChaCha20 and AES, and their application in IoT environments.  
The article in [18] presents an optimized implementation of ChaCha20-Poly1305, tailored for high-speed embedded IoT systems. The authors demonstrate that this algorithm provides robust security while consuming less memory and CPU, making it ideal for resource-constrained devices.  
The study in [19] explores the integration of various algorithms, including ChaCha20, into the MAVLink protocol used for communication between drones and control stations. The authors show that ChaCha20 offers superior performance in terms of memory and CPU consumption while ensuring message confidentiality and integrity, making it suitable for low-power IoT systems.  
In [20] the author compares three lightweight algorithms, AES-128, SPECK, and ASCON, on resource-limited IoT platforms such as Arduino Nano and Micro. SPECK stands out for its efficiency and simplicity, making it ideal for highly constrained devices. ASCON provides robust security with a trade-off in memory consumption. This study aids in selecting algorithms that balance performance and security for the IoT.  
According to Table 1, summarizing this Section, the proposed protocol uniquely integrates decentralized storage, hybrid authentication, and lightweight encryption, addressing gaps in previous research. By combining IPFS, blockchain, and Ascon, it offers a scalable and secure solution tailored for IoT environments.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**Article** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Decentralized** \\ **Storage** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Hybrid** \\ **Authentication** \\ **Mechanisms** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Lightweight** \\ **Encryption for the** \\ **IoT** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Description** \\ **ToT** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[12] & ✓ & \(\times\) & \(\times\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} Focuses on decentralized storage \\ solutions but lacks authentication and \\ encryption aspects. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[13] & ✓ & \(\times\) & \(\times\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} Highlights blockchain-based storage \\ with some centralization issues but no \\ mention of encryption or authentication. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[14] & ✓ & \(\times\) & \(\times\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} IPFS is emphasized for scalability and \\ content-based addressing, but no hybrid \\ mechanisms or encryption is discussed. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[15] & \(\times\) & ✓ & \(\times\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} Proposes blockchain-based 2 FA for \\ securing traditional systems but lacks \\ storage or encryption components. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[16] & \(\times\) & ✓ & ✓ &
\begin{tabular}{c} Combines IoT authentication with \\ lightweight cryptography for better \\ efficiency and energy use. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[17] & \(\times\) & ✓ & \(\times\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} Uses hybrid consensus algorithms and \\ AI for blockchain security but does not \\ address storage or lightweight \\ encryption. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[18] & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & ✓ &
\begin{tabular}{c} Optimizes implementation of ChaCha20 \\ for IoT embedded systems with high \\ efficiency but no storage or \\ authentication focus. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[19] & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & ✓ &
\begin{tabular}{c} Is integrated for secure drone \\ communication in IoT but lacks storage \\ or authentication mechanisms. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[20] & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & ✓ &
\begin{tabular}{c} Comparative analysis for selecting \\ encryption algorithms suitable for \\ resource-constrained IoT devices. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Summary of all articles in the Related Work section.