# Analysis of Lightweight Cryptographic Algorithms on IoT Hardware Platform +
## 5 Discussion  
Some of the algorithms' measured speed and power latencies (plus the key schedule) of the ENC are presented in the following figures as a percentage to the RR (AES). They are grouped in two ways: block or key sizes. Some groups with their corresponding figures are as follows:  
* The 128-bits block size and 96-bits key size RR% groups of the key schedule speed latency presented in Figures 20 and 21. * The 32-bits block size and 256-bits key size RR% groups of the ENC speed latency presented in Figures 22 and 23. Figure 21: Group of 96-bits key size algorithms measuring key schedule speed latency with respect to RR% in UNO versus Pi. Figure 20: Group of 128-bits block size algorithms measuring key schedule speed latency with respect to RR% in UNO versus Pi. After an adequate observation over all these groupings and their results between UNO and Pi, it was realized that for more than 85% of the algorithm throughout, the metrics used had gone better in Pi. For example, Lea-128-192 was 1673% to the RR in the key schedule for UNO, whereas it became 47% for Pi. Statistically, in the key schedule, there were 10 algorithms below 100% for UNO, while they became 33 algorithms for Pi; in the ENC speed latency, there were 28 algorithms below 100% for UNO, whereas the number became 79 algorithms for Pi; and in the ENC energy, there were 33 algorithms below 100% for UNO, whereas the number became 65 algorithms for Pi. Consequently, Raspberry Pi is revealing more lightweight features and behavior of the designed lightweight algorithms that might be explained \"because of the Hardware and Software Architecture of the Raspberry Pi\". The 67 winners in each group of the block or key arrangement throughout the key scheduling speed latency, ENC/DEC speed latency, and ENC/DEC energy are listed in Table 4. It can be concluded that 36 (84%) of 39 of the algorithms are faster (fewer cycles) in the key schedule, 106 (94%) of 110 of the algorithms are faster (fewer cycles) in the ENC, and 95 (86%) of 110 have taken less power in Pi compared to UNO, as shown in Table 4 with an additional statistical comparison. Moreover, it was realized as a quick observation that most of the algorithms that were worse in Pi compared against UNO were of an 80-bits key, like in the energy ENC. That may indicate a reliance on the 80-bits key in the algorithms' design is not preferable, but this should take further investigation to deduce such a conclusion. A Score Table is presented in this section for some measuring metrics. The scores (or cards) are given to each algorithm in each of the selected measures: ROM, ENC speed \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Condition** & **Key Schedule** & **Key Schedule** & **ENC Speed UNO** & **ENC Speed Pi** & **Energy UNO** & **Energy Pi (10)** \\  & **Speed UNO (39)** & **Speed Pi (39)** & **(110)** & **(110)** & **(110)** & **Energy Pi (110)** \\ \hline Unit Normal & Kbytes/Keycles & & Kbytes/Keycles per s & & Cbytes/Keycles & [0,097,67,4] & [0.035,26.871] /byte \\ Comparison & per s & & per s & per s & \#/byte & [0.035,26.871] /byte \\ \hline Overall sum of \% & 30,760 & 6032 & 77,014 & 6114 & 68,138 & 42,308 \\ \hline Overall sum of \% & & \textgreater{}80\% & & \textgreater{}92\% & & \textgreater{} 40\% \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{UNO to Pi} & & & & & \\ \hline \# of algorithms & 3 (all of 64 Block & & & & \\ decreases in RR \% & size) & 36 (92\%) & 6 (4 of key size 80) & 106 (94\%) & 15 (8 of 9 of key size 80) & 95 (86\%) \\ \hline \# of algorithms & 10 (25\%) & 33 (84\%) (+23 & & & \\ \textless{}100\% in RR \% & & added) & 28 (25\%) & 79 (72\%) (+51 & 33 (30\%) & 65 (60\%) (+32 added) \\ \hline Overall sum of \% & & & & & & \\ \hline \textgreater{} & The number of algorithms decreases & & & & & \\ \hline \textless{}100\% & Number of algorithms that are below 100\% in RR & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Overall comparison of algorithms’ numbers and percentage in UNO versus Pi.