# A Finite State Machine-Based Improved Cryptographic Technique
## 4 Results and Analysis of Proposed Work
Both sequences were produced by the MCTC using the ith and (i + 1)th secret key and an interleaving length of 20,000 bits. The interleaving sequence was generated with the use of an elliptic curve with the parameters E19991(3,1), \(k_{m}\) = 49853, G = (52,17), and \(P\) = (62,2). As a result of the points being evenly distributed around the graph, it is hard to draw any conclusions about the nature of the cypher or their connection to one another that are relevant. This indicates that the association is not extraordinarily strong. Because of this, it is exceedingly difficult for an unauthorized user to anticipate the interleaving pattern due to the low value of the correlation (Table 4). The Quadrature Permutation Polynomial, also known as QPP; the random FSM, sometimes known as RI; and the deterministic FSM, often known as DI, are all frequently used by the TC. It was determined whether the MCTC, QPP, RI, and DI had all been generated in a random fashion. In Figure 4, a comparison is made between the scatter plots of the RI, QPP, DI, and MCTC. The output sequence can be seen in the figure because QPP and DI are interleaved in such a way that makes it visible; as a result, the output sequence is predictable and open to attack. However, the interlea \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Secret Key \(k_{\mathrm{s}}\)** & **Correlation Coefficient** \\ \hline
14,795 & \(-\)0.01457 \\
15,789 & \(-\)0.01489 \\
17,458 & \(-\)0.0147 \\
24,571 & \(-\)0.0014 \\
74,568 & \(-\)0.00793 \\
14,891 & \(-\)0.00741 \\
27,894 & \(-\)0.00143 \\
17,489 & \(-\)0.00369 \\
178,946 & \(-\)0.00753 \\ Average & \(-\)0.00159 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Correlation coefficient between the input and the output bit locations of MCTC for different values of \(k_{\mathrm{s}}\). easily determined by an authorized user based on the original bit sequence, even though both the RI and the suggested MCTC demonstrate a large degree of unpredictability in the pattern (Figure 5). To calculate the normalized dispersion and spreading factor of the proposed MCTC, simulations were run using an input bit sequence of lengths 133, 499, and 2019, correspondingly. This allowed for the determination of the normalized dispersion and spreading factor. According to the information shown in Table 5, the value of the RI standard deviation is somewhere around 0.8. Because the suggested MCTC has a dispersion value that is close to that of the RI, it is possible to use it as a method that interleaves bits in a way that is both effective and efficient. In addition to this, it comes as quite a shock. Despite this, the DI and the QPP both exhibit a little degree of dispersion to varying degrees. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the DI and QPP generate a predictable interleaving pattern for the data they process (Table 6). Figure 5: The relationship between the original bit locations and the interleaved bit locations for both the present and planned FSM. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**L** & **RI** & & **DI** & & **QPP** & & **MCTC** \\ \hline  & \(\gamma\) & _sp_ & \(\gamma\) & _sp_ & \(\gamma\) & _sp_ & \(\gamma\) & _sp_ \\
133 & 0.8245 & 2 & 0.0300 & 10 & 0.0455 & 16 & 0.8216 & 2 \\
499 & 0.8130 & 2 & 0.0075 & 18 & 0.0210 & 32 & 0.8124 & 2 \\
2019 & 0.8132 & 2 & 0.0019 & 27 & 0.0103 & 64 & 0.8131 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The dispersion of each of the FSMs is compared here.