## 4 Results and Discussion  
In this section, the experimental validation of the FHEOKG-SGC technique is examined in detail. Table 1 provides a detailed comparative study of the FHEOKG-SGC system with recent models under varying file sizes [26]. The comparative key generation time (KGT) inspection of the FHEOKG-SGC technique with other protocols demonstrated that the FHEOKG-SGC technique gains effectual performance with minimal KGT values. For instance, with a 1024 bytes file, the FHEOKG-SGC technique reaches a reduced KGT of 1616 ms, while the AES, FGECDH, and EESRA approaches obtain increased KGT values of 1696 ms, 1678 ms, and 1661 ms, respectively. Next, the comparative encryption time (ENT) inspection of the FHEOKG-SGC technique with other protocols illustrated that the FHEOKG-SGC technique gains effectual performance with minimal ENT values. For example, with a 1024 bytes file, the FHEOKG-SGC method reaches a reduced ENT of 2107 ms, whereas the AES, FGECDH, and EESRA approaches attain increased ENT values of 2264 ms, 2182 ms, and 2171 ms, respectively. Based on decryption time (DET) examination of the FHEOKG-SGC technique, the experimental values illustrate that the FHEOKG-SGC method attains effectual performance with minimal DET values. For instance, with a 1024 bytes file, the FHEOKG-SGC technique achieves a decreased DET of 1625 ms, while the AES, FGECDH, and EESRA methods attain increased DET values of 2676 ms, 2238 ms, and 1831 ms, respectively. Figure 3 demonstrates the comparative encrypted file size (EFS) inspection of the FHEOKG-SGC method with other protocols. The experimental values show that the FHEOKG-SGC technique attains effectual performance with minimal EFS values. For instance, with a 1024 bytes file, the FHEOKG-SGC method obtains a reduced EFS of 1531 bytes, while the AES, FGECDH, and EESRA approaches obtain increased EFS values of 1912 bytes, 1780 bytes, and 1584 bytes, respectively. Furthermore, with an 8170 bytes file, the FHEOKG-SGC method reaches a reduced EFS of 2105 bytes, while the AES, FGECDH, and EESRA approaches obtain increased EFS values of 13,246 bytes, 8273 bytes, and 8794 bytes, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**File Size (Bytes)** & **AES Protocol** & **FGECDH Protocol** & **EESRA Protocol** & **FHEOKG-SGC** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Key Generation Time (ms)} \\ \hline
1024 & 1696 & 1678 & 1661 & 1616 \\
2048 & 1773 & 1753 & 1739 & 1678 \\
4096 & 1951 & 1886 & 1825 & 1802 \\
8192 & 2216 & 2160 & 2124 & 2105 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Encryption Time (ms)} \\ \hline
1024 & 2264 & 2182 & 2171 & 2107 \\
2048 & 2338 & 2312 & 2283 & 2245 \\
4096 & 2511 & 2461 & 2443 & 2431 \\
8192 & 3020 & 2947 & 2916 & 2903 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Decryption Time (ms)} \\ \hline
1024 & 2676 & 2238 & 1831 & 1625 \\
2048 & 2665 & 2196 & 1817 & 1621 \\
4096 & 2654 & 2125 & 1766 & 1592 \\
8192 & 2541 & 2026 & 1725 & 1558 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Encrypted File Size (Bytes)} \\ \hline
1024 & 1912 & 1780 & 1584 & 1531 \\
2048 & 3624 & 1893 & 1829 & 1812 \\
4096 & 5757 & 2060 & 2026 & 2107 \\
8192 & 13246 & 8273 & 8794 & 8170 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparative outcome of the FHEOKG-SGC approach with other protocols under varying file sizes. Table 2 demonstrates the comparative packet loss rate (PLR) inspection of the FHEOKG-SGC technique with other protocols. The experimental values illustrate that the FHEOKG-SGC method obtains effectual performance with minimal PLR values. For instance, in Test-1, the FHEOKG-SGC method attained a reduced PLR of 19.45%, while the LEACH, AES, FGECDH, and EESRA methods obtained increased PLR values of 26.75%, 27.35%, 24.59%, and 22.72%, respectively. Furthermore, in Test-5, the FHEOKG-SGC technique attained a reduced PLR of 17.69%, while the LEACH, AES, FGECDH, and EESRA approaches gained increased PLR values of 26.09%, 23.65%, 21.47%, and 18.34%, respectively. Figure 4 demonstrates the comparative delay (DEL) inspection of the FHEOKG-SGC technique with other protocols.