Authors : Ahmad Salah Aljalikh; Mohamad Mostafa Haajjouz

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/28ncfney

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct012

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : One-Time Pad (OTP) encryption offers perfect secrecy, but only if its key is truly random, as long as the message, and never reused. Prior studies proposed heuristic key generators for OTP, such as genetic algorithms (GA), linear congruential generators (LCG) and neural networks, usually without a unified comparison against the authenticated-encryption (AEAD) standards used in practice. This paper presents a reproducible benchmark of five methods: OTP-OS, LCG-XOR, GA-XOR, AES-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305. The main experiment contains 1,200 randomized observations over four message sizes (4 KiB to 5 MiB) with 30 replicated blocks, complemented by tamperdetection, keystream-diagnostic and GA-isolation experiments. AES-GCM was the fastest method from 64 KiB upward (6.90 ms at 5 MiB), whereas GA-XOR was 17.4 to 1,554.9 times slower than the fastest method depending on size. Each AEAD cipher rejected all 90 tampered packages, while each of the three XOR-based methods accepted all 90 modifications silently. LCG-XOR reached an ideal entropy of 8.000000 bit/byte yet repeated its keystream every 256 bytes. Finally, GA improved its own fitness function over a single seed but not over random search with an equal budget of 156 evaluations, nor on held-out data. Heuristic key generation therefore showed no demonstrated security benefit over standard AEAD.

Keywords : One-Time Pad, Genetic Algorithm, AES-GCM, ChaCha20-Poly1305, Authenticated Encryption, Benchmarking.

References :

1. C. E. Shannon, “Communication theory of secrecy systems,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 656–715, 1949, doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1949.tb00928.x.
2. C. Matt and U. Maurer, “The one-time pad revisited,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2013, pp. 2706–2710.
3. M. Sokouti, B. Sokouti, S. Pashazadeh, M.-R. Feizi-Derakhshi and S. Haghipour, “Genetic-based random key generator (GRKG): A new method for generating more-random keys for one-time pad cryptosystem,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 22, no. 7–8, pp. 1667–1675, 2013.
4. A. Jain and N. S. Chaudhari, “An improved genetic algorithm for developing deterministic OTP key generator,” Complexity, vol. 2017, Art. no. 7436709, 2017, doi: 10.1155/2017/7436709.
5. D. Apdilah, M. K. Harahap, N. Khairina, A. M. Husein and M. Harahap, “A comparison of one time pad random key generation using linear congruential generator and quadratic congruential generator,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 1007, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2018.
6. J. Jin and K. Kim, “3D CUBE algorithm for the key generation method: Applying deep neural network learning-based,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 33689–33702, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2973695.
7. Z. A. Ali and H. F. Hasan, “A review of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in key generation for encryption algorithms,” Iraqi J. Sci. Eng. Res., vol. 4, no. 1, Art. no. 289, 2025, doi: 10.58564/IJSER.4.1.2025.289.
8. M. Bellare and C. Namprempre, “Authenticated encryption: Relations among notions and analysis of the generic composition paradigm,” in Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2000, LNCS vol. 1976. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2000, pp. 531–545, doi: 10.1007/3-540-44448-3_41.
9. M. Dworkin, “Recommendation for block cipher modes of operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC,” NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Spec. Publ. 800-38D, Nov. 2007, doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38D.
10. Y. Nir and A. Langley, “ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF protocols,” IETF, RFC 8439, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.17487/RFC8439.
11. L. E. Bassham et al., “A statistical test suite for random and pseudorandom number generators for cryptographic applications,” NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Spec. Publ. 800-22 Rev. 1a, Apr. 2010.
12. M. Turčaník and M. Javurek, “Cryptographic key generation by genetic algorithms,” Inf. Secur.: Int. J., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 54–61, 2019, doi: 10.11610/isij.4305.
13. S. A. Shawkat, N. Tagougui and M. Kherallah, “Optimization-based pseudo random key generation for fast encryption scheme,” Bull. Electr. Eng. Inform., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1007–1018, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.11591/eei.v12i2.4953.
14. G. R. Bansimba, R. F. Babindamana and P. A. G. Kidoudou, “A new approach in one-time pad key management,” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur., vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1–8, 2019.
15. D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2: Seminumerical Algorithms, 3rd ed. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley, 1998.
16. H. W. Chung et al., “Scaling instruction-finetuned language models,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 25, pp. 1–53, 2024.
17. Z. Ji et al., “Survey of hallucination in natural language generation,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1–38, 2023, doi: 10.1145/3571730.