# An Efficient Framework for Secure Communication in Internet of Drone Networks Using Deep Computing
## 3 Materials and Methods
### System Model and Problem Formulation
#### 3.1.6 Protocol Phases
Drone shows considerably less memory usage than other protocols, consuming around 36% less memory than LDAP, 33% less than TAUROT, 43% less than IoD-Auth, and 30% less than LEMAP with 50 concurrent sessions. This memory performance is made possible by enhanced session management data structures, effective storage of security credentials, reduced storage of state information, security parameter caching only of frequently accessed security parameters, and runtime garbage collection of obsolete session data. A breakdown of the memory use among various components of authentication is depicted in Table 4.

### Energy Consumption

Energy consumption is a key consideration for battery-operated drones, and we recorded the energy consumption during the authentication process, as illustrated in Figure 8. The findings show that SecureDrone is more energy efficient in all authentication operations, using about 38% less energy than LDAP, 33% less than TAUROT, 44% less than IoD-Auth, and 27% less than LEMAP for a complete authentication process. The energy efficiency is even more significant in re-authentication and key refresh operations, which are performed often under normal conditions, thus making SecureDrone very effective in increasing drone flight time and capabilities. This low energy usage comes through reduced computational complexity of the cryptographic operations, decreased communication overhead, efficient execution of security algorithms, optimized behavior analysis process, and adaptive security levels depending on threat assessment. Moreover, SecureDrone is even more efficient since LDAP and IoD-Auth do not have behavior analysis, and thus are not as optimized for smart threat detection and resource management. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & **SecureDrone** & **LDAP** & **TAUROT** & **IoD-Auth** & **LEMAP** \\ \hline Cryptographic Keys & 28 & 52 & 48 & 64 & 42 \\ Session States & 32 & 48 & 42 & 55 & 38 \\ Behaviour Profiles & 45 & N/A & 51 & N/A & 47 \\ Authentication & 18 & 42 & 35 & 47 & 31 \\ Cache & 50 & 65 & 60 & 72 & 58 \\ Total & 173 & 207 & 236 & 238 & 216 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Memory usage breakdown (KB) for 20 concurrent sessions. Figure 7: Memory consumption of five key protocols during authentication with varying number of concurrent sessions. ### Communication Overhead

Communication overhead was calculated in terms of the number of messages and their size passed through during the authentication process, and Figure 9 shows a comparative analysis. From the results, SecureDrone has less communication overhead compared to other protocols with 33% fewer messages compared to LDAP, 20% fewer compared to TAUROT, 43% fewer compared to IoD-Auth, and the same as LEMAP. As far as overall message size is concerned, SecureDrone's overhead is about 32% less than LDAP, 22% less than TAUROT, 43% less than IoD-Auth, and 17% less than LEMAP. All this is achieved through compact message formats with less padding, efficient encoding of security parameters, aggregated authentication, and key establishment messages, context-dependent selection of security parameters, and compressed behavior feature representation. Table 5 offers a detailed comparison of the communication overhead per protocol. Figure 8: Energy consumption comparison among five key authentication operations. Figure 9: Communication overhead of five key protocols as the number of messages and their size increases. ### Scalability Analysis

Figure 10 shows a 3D visualization of authentication time as both user count and drone count grow. The comparatively level surface for SecureDrone over other protocols illustrates better performance scaling in large-scale deployments with multiple concurrent users and drones. The 3D visualization proves that SecureDrone has better scalability, having lower authentication time as the number of drones and users increases. At the largest tested scale (50 drones and 20 users), SecureDrone's authentication time is roughly 32% less than LDAP.