## 6 Performance Evaluation
Even in a worst-case scenario, such as single-key transmission typical in traditional approaches,  
Figure 7: The attack success rate versus the attacker’s pervasiveness as a function of different multipath selections (number of paths = 2, 4, 6) for both the proposed and traditional methods. the proposed method achieves a significantly higher security percentage, exceeding the traditional method by almost 71.15%. Figure 8: The total security percentage versus the attacker’s pervasiveness as a function of different multipath selections (number of paths = 2, 4, 6) for both the proposed and traditional methods. Figure 9: The attack success rate versus multipath selections as a function of the QKD pairs (number of QKD = 1, 3, 5) for both the proposed and traditional methods. The analysis of multiple figures, including Figures 7-10, reveals that the proposed algorithms outperform traditional methods in terms of total success rate and attack success rate. Notably, leveraging advanced techniques like multipath selection and transmitting multiple keys enhances system security and resilience. As the number of transmitted keys and exploited paths increases, the proposed methods consistently achieve higher security percentages and success rates, underscoring their effectiveness. Increasing the number of transmitted keys has a more significant impact on system performance than exploited paths. The proposed method exhibits versatility and can be applied in various scenarios, including real-time applications, demonstrating its potential for practical implementation in real-world QKD systems. Overall, the findings emphasize the effectiveness of innovative algorithms in mitigating security risks and improving system performance, paving the way for more secure communication infrastructures in the face of evolving threats. In summary, Table 2 presents a comparative analysis of the proposed QKD network based on multipath-multi-key spatiotemporal diversification in a zero-trust environment, and the traditional benchmark that relies on multipath selection in a zero-trust environment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Description** & **Proposed vs. Traditional Method** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Execution time} & \multirow{3}{*}{Multipath QKD} & Higher due to additional security processes, while traditional methods have lower execution time but lack adaptive security mechanisms. \\ \cline{3-3}  & & 20\% attacker pervasiveness & 97.22\% lower than traditional methods; \\ \cline{3-3}  & Single key transmission & 91.42\% lower than traditional methods; \\ \cline{3-3}  & Multiple QKD pairs & 75\% lower than traditional methods. \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total security percentage} & 20\% attacker pervasiveness & 35\% higher than traditional methods; \\ \cline{3-3}  & 80\% attacker pervasiveness & 90\% overall security retained, while traditional methods \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-3}  & & experience a significant security drop. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of overall results between the proposed and traditional methods. Figure 10: The total security percentage versus multipath selections as a function of the QKD pairs (number of QKD = 1, 3, 5) for both the proposed and traditional methods.