## 4 Experimental Results
### Personal Computer (PC) vs. Card--Encryption Using RSA CSP Class  
In the second experiment we will compare the two processing systems, match-off-card vs. match-on-card. As stated above, match-off-card processing will be done using a PC, Intel Core i5 5200U CPU 2.20 GHz, 8 GB of RAM, Windows 10 64-bit operating system and using the RSA CSP class from NET framework. However, the match-on-card uses the smart card reader to transfer the information between the national eID biometric smart-card and the PC.  
As in the first experiment, this experiment will include all eight text files and the experiment will be executed 10 times for each file. The experimental results for all test vectors are shown in Table 3 and Figure 9.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Average Time (ms)**} \\ \hline
**Size** & **RSA** & **RSA CSP** & **Diff** \\ \hline
1 KB & 1.10 & 1.56 & 41.72\% \\
10 KB & 9.12 & 12.99 & 42.45\% \\
50 KB & 42.00 & 60.80 & 44.76\% \\
100 KB & 86.24 & 120.27 & 39.46\% \\
1 MB & 820.46 & 1311.71 & 59.88\% \\
2 MB & 1619.16 & 2452.83 & 51.49\% \\
5 MB & 4144.82 & 6305.64 & 52.13\% \\
10 MB & 8176.34 & 12,375.17 & 51.35\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Average time of RSA vs. RSA CSP.  
Figure 8: Graphical results of RSA vs. RSA CSP.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r} \hline \hline
**Size** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 KB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10 KB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10 KB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**50 KB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**100 KB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 MB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 MB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5 MB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10 MB**} \\ \hline \# & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP & RSA & CSP \\ \hline
1 & 3.16 & 2.53 & 12.55 & 18.26 & 60.67 & 66.03 & 120.60 & 127.79 & 1217.8 & 1235.4 & 2479.8 & 2466.8 & 6603.3 & 6553.7 & 13,160.6 & 12,446.0 \\
2 & 1.48 & 1.81 & 20.58 & 12.56 & 59.56 & 6.238 & 119.40 & 123.08 & 12146 & 1224.2 & 2482.4 & 2494.6 & 6149.6 & 6779.2 & 12,201.2 & 12,865.5 \\
3 & 1.33 & 1.33 & 12.12 & 12.91 & 59.65 & 60.54 & 118.85 & 119.40 & 1216.3 & 1295.1 & 2154.1 & 2367.2 & 6530.1 & 14,128.0 & 12,174.1 \\
4 & 1.29 & 1.33 & 12.07 & 12.31 & 68.15 & 60.33 & 119.35 & 19.22 & 1212.66 & 1387.7 & 2440.3 & 2449.3 & 6359.9 & 6348.8 & 12,173.6 & 12,187.8 \\
5 & 1.28 & 2.00 & 12.05 & 12.59 & 59.38 & 60.52 & 118.48 & 118.92 & 1223.2 & 1312.5 & 2431.2 & 2446.6 & 6083.2 & 6091.3 & 12,155.7 & 12,173.6 \\
6 & 1.24 & 1.  
As with the previous experiment, more time will be needed at the beginning of each experiment, for the same reason as before. PCs also have internal memory, and more time will be needed for data to load and stored there [17].  
The main conclusion from this experiment that we can draw is that the processing time increases exponentially with the size of a file, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 10. But, we cannot draw a conclusion as to which processing time is more efficient, since both systems perform roughly the same. So, neither of the match-on-card or match-off-card processing systems performs better and both can be used for encryption of information.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Average Time (ms)**} \\ \hline
**Size** & **PC** & **Card** & **Diff** \\ \hline
1 KB & 1.47 & 1.56 & 6.20\% \\
10 KB & 13.06 & 12.99 & \(-\)0.59\% \\
50 KB & 60.70 & 60.80 & 0.16\% \\
100 KB & 119.14 & 120.27 & 0.95\% \\
1 MB & 1218.03 & 1311.71 & 7.69\% \\
2 MB & 2447.24 & 2452.83 & 0.23\% \\
5 MB & 6219.72 & 6305.64 & 1.38\% \\
10 MB & 12,370.65 & 12,375.17 & 0.04\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Average time of PC vs. card.  
Figure 9: Graphical results of the experiment.