# An Intrusion Resistant SCADA Framework Based on Quantum and Post-Quantum Scheme
## 6 Results
### Comparative Analysis between SPHINCS-QRNG and Current Algorithms Used in AGA-12  
To address the first set of research questions, we implemented and performed a comparative analysis between the Digital signature algorithm used, RSA and ECDSA, in AGA-12 vs. Quantum Key Distribution protocol and SPHINCS-256 with the QRNG algorithm in our proposed scheme. We performed five simulations for RSA and ECDSA and generated five key pairs for each algorithm. We tested the keys by performing the appropriate NIST statistical tests for randomness. Figure 15 shows the observations that they do not satisfy 100% of them.  
The 192-bit private key and 384-bit public key of ECDSA passed 96% of the NIST tests over five simulations. RSA private key size with 2048 bit passed 90% of the NIST tests over five simulations, and RSA public passed 98% of them. In contrast, the raw key and final key in QKD passed all the tests (100%) over ten simulations. Moreover, SPHINCS-256, with QRNG key pairs, passed 98% of the tests over five simulations.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(p\)- & & & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Values**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Frequency**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Frequency**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Run**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fourier**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Serial**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Approximate**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sums**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sums**} \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Final**} & & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Final**} & & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Keys**} & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**1** & 0.44605 & 0.44605 & 0.34151 & 0.59996 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.25500 & 0.84788 \\ \hline
**2** & 0.52873 & 0.52873 & 0.49381 & 0.93090 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.85301 & 0.85301 \\ \hline
**3** & 0.52873 & 0.52873 & 0.06409 & 0.02604 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.41518 & 0.85301 \\ \hline
**4** & 0.20408 & 0.20408 & 0.06066 & 0.52153 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.19747 & 0.15080 \\ \hline
**5** & 0.10145 & 0.10145 & 0.03904 & 0.28487 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.11756 & 0.15551 \\ \hline
**6** & 0.44605 & 0.44605 & 0.55704 & 0.52153 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.50516 & 0.50516 \\ \hline
**7** & 0.44605 & 0.44605 & 0.55704 & 0.52153 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.50516 & 0.50516 \\ \hline
**8** & 0.52873 & 0.52873 & 0.02740 & 0.28487 & 0.49896 & 0.49813 & 1 & 0.94315 & 0.51267 \\ \hline
**9** & 0.20408 & 0.20408 & 0.04177 & 0.04177 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.32478 & 0.32478 \\ \hline
**10** & 0.61145 & 0.61145 & 0.19079 & 0.59996 & 0.49896 & 0.49853 & 1 & 0.73271 & 0.94027 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: \(p\)-values of appropriate NIST statistical Tests on Randomness applied to Final Key (mean size = 62 bit) of B92. Conclusion: Random.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(p\)- & & & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Values**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Frequency**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Frequency**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Run**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fourier**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Serial**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Approximate**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sums**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cumulative**} \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Raw**} & & & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Keys**} & & & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Keys**} & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**1** & 0.92956 & 0.65024 & 0.42611 & 0.13129 & 0.62649 & 0.99402 & 0.99932 & 1 & 0.89202 & 0.81876 \\ \hline
**2** & 0.11161 & 0.12026 & 0.54970 & 0.29407 & 0.93535 & 0.49896 & 0.07918 & 1 & 0.22321 & 0.18615 \\ \hline
**3** & 0.79088 & 0.4