# A Finite State Machine-Based Improved Cryptographic Technique
## 4 Results and Analysis of Proposed Work
### Proposed MCTC  
MCTC is responsible for both the encoding and encryption of the bitstream. By combining a bit error rate of around 10-5 with a Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) of 0.7 dB, conventional TC serves as an efficient error-correcting code. Although, there is no encryption during transmission. Given this, the authors of this work offer MCTC as an alternative to error correction for securing data transmission. The proposed MCTC employs an Elliptic Curve Cryptographic Finite State Machine to construct an unpredictable, user-specific, and secure interleaving pattern (MCTC). This method creates the design when fed an elliptic curve and a secret key. The goal is to achieve error-correction performance such as that of the TC with the help of the proposed MCTC, which is designed to successfully decorrelate the code words formed by the CTC. Data sent out by the MCTC using a secret key is protected by the random shuffling pattern and the key itself is kept secret. Figure 7 compares the bit error rate (BER) vs. the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) for a non-encrypted system, an MCTC system, a TC system, an MCTC-TC system, and an MCTC system. In contrast to the transmission of data without encoding or encryption, the findings show that the MCTC is less effective at error correction. It is evident since the MCTC is not as good at fixing mistakes. This is because MCTC often leads to errors spreading to neighboring bits. More than half of the bits must be right for the decryption to succeed; hence, even one wrong bit in the input will result in failure. Thus, the Advanced Encryption Standard (MCTC) calls for a second error-correcting code to ensure that the data being transported is legitimate. In comparison to the original MCTC, the TCs in the MCTC-BER version are much lower. The error-correction performance of MCTC-TC far exceeds that of MCTC because the TC fixes the transmission error. Attempts to employ MCTC-TC to produce a BER on par with a TC have been met with little success so far. For this reason, MCTC is vulnerable to the avalanche effect, which is caused by the bits whose faults have not been corrected by TC. The bits produced by MCTC will be faulty by at least half if TC is unable to fix even a single bit. In addition, the TC's BER performance is degraded because of the fact that MCTC has a block length of 128 bits, which limits the amount of TC's frames. The TC and the suggested MCTC have BER performances that are quite similar. The MCTC's secret key produces private, de-correlated codewords, which is why it is so widely used. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{r c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Encryption Time in Sec.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Decryption Time in Sec.**} \\ \hline
**Input File** & **Symmetric** & & & **Symmetric** \\
**Size KB** & **Algorithm** & **MCTC FSM** & & **Algorithm** & **MCTC FSM** \\ \hline
3 & 3.54 & 2.43 & 3.53 & 2.10 \\
5 & 5.76 & 4.65 & 5.81 & 4.23 \\
7 & 8.31 & 7.20 & 8.21 & 7.45 \\
11 & 13.78 & 12.67 & 13.65 & 12.04 \\
18 & 22.19 & 11.08 & 21.89 & 19.57 \\
21 & 28.28 & 17.17 & 27.99 & 24.12 \\
25 & 31.32 & 20.21 & 32.22 & 30.78 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: PSNR measurements taken from pictures recovered by CTC using both the right and wrong keys. The BER plot of MCTC is shown in Figure 7; compared to TC, MCTC loses just 0.2 dB of coding at a BER of 10-4, while gaining 0.8 dB when compared to MCTC-TC. The diagram displays this data. The fact that MCTC's random shuffling is controlled by a secret key also helps to ensure the privacy of any sensitive data it transmits. The code's total performance is heavily dependent on how well the MCTC algorithm is implemented. Many factors affect its performance in term of error correction: (i) The MCTC's architecture; (ii) The number of decoding rounds conducted by the CTC decoder; (iii) the CTC's frame length. We analyze how adjusting these parameters impacts the CTC's performance.