Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Applied SciencesApplied Sciences
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

10 July 2025

Design Trends and Comparative Analysis of Lightweight Block Ciphers for IoTs

,
and
Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci.2025, 15(14), 7740;https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147740
This article belongs to the Section Computing and Artificial Intelligence
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of 58 lightweight block ciphers (LWBCs) introduced between 2018 and 2025, designed specifically for securing resource-constrained environments such as the Internet of Things (IoTs). The ciphers are systematically categorized into five structural classes: substitution-permutation network (SPN), Feistel network (FN), generalized Feistel network (GFN), addition-rotation-XOR (ARX), and hybrid architectures. For each cipher, key characteristics—block size, key length, structural design, number of rounds, implementation cost in gate equivalents (GEs), and known limitations—are analyzed in detail. The study offers an in-depth comparative assessment of performance, security, and implementation efficiency, providing a clear understanding of design trade-offs and cryptographic innovations. By consolidating and evaluating recent advancements in lightweight cryptography, this survey fills a crucial gap in the literature. It equips researchers, engineers, and system designers with the insights needed to make informed decisions when selecting or developing efficient cryptographic solutions tailored for modern IoTs systems. Its comprehensive scope and practical relevance make it an essential reference for advancing secure, lightweight cryptographic implementations in an increasingly connected world.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the demand for secure communication in low resource environments has grown significantly due to the rapid expansion of embedded systems and the Internet of Things (IoTs). These systems, which encompass sensors, RFID tags, mobile devices, and wireless sensor networks, often function with limited computational power, memory, and energy resources. Traditional cryptographic algorithms such as AES, while highly secure, are generally inappropriate for these scenarios due to their high resource demands [1].
To tackle these challenges, lightweight block ciphers (LWBCs) have emerged as a vital area of research and development. LWBCs are designed to meet the stringent requirements of constrained devices by minimizing gate area, power consumption, and computational complexity while ensuring a reasonable level of cryptographic security. These ciphers are used in a variety of applications, including secure data transmission, device authentication, and privacy protection [2].
The development of LWBCs has been driven by several factors, including the need for scalable security solutions, the limitations of traditional encryption standards in constrained environments, and the increasing threat of cyberattacks on pervasive technologies. Researchers have proposed a wide range of LWBCs, each employing different structural approaches such as Feistel networks, substitution-permutation networks (SPNs), and generalized Feistel networks (GFNs), often incorporating unique optimization techniques for specific environments [3].
Figure 1 highlights the fundamental challenges in IoTs environments and maps them to corresponding security requirements, many of which are directly addressed through lightweight cryptography. Issues such as limited computational resources, long-term device support, and the integration of diverse technologies underscore the need for cryptographic solutions that are both efficient and robust. Lightweight block ciphers play a vital role in meeting core security requirements such as confidentiality, data integrity, and authentication without overwhelming constrained devices. Their low area, energy, and latency footprints make them ideal for enforcing privacy, securing record updates, and ensuring availability across a wide range of interconnected IoTs systems. By aligning cryptographic design with the outlined requirements, particularly in addressing cyber threats and ensuring secure interoperability, lightweight cryptography serves as a foundational tool for building secure, scalable IoTs ecosystems.
Figure 1. Challenges of IoTs and its security requirements.
This survey provides a comprehensive overview of notable LWBCs proposed between 2018 and 2025. We categorize the ciphers by their underlying structural models and evaluate them based on various criteria, including hardware efficiency (measured in Gate Equivalents), cryptographic strength, and adaptability to different platforms. By comparing these ciphers, we aim to highlight the design trade-offs involved and provide guidance for selecting suitable cryptographic solutions for diverse constrained environments.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the structural taxonomy and classification of the 58 lightweight block ciphers based on their internal architecture. Section 3 provides a summary literature review of LWBCs and their drawbacks. Section 4 offers a comparative analysis across all designs, emphasizing trade-offs between performance, cost, and security. Section 5 discusses current trends and observations across cipher types, highlighting practical design choices. Finally, Section 6 outlines key conclusions and identifies future research directions for lightweight cryptographic development.

2. Methodology

Literature resources in this article were collected from multiple digital databases commonly used by cryptography researchers. These include IEEE Xplore (IEEE), SpringerLink (Springer), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Google Scholar, MDPI, IOP Publishing, KoreaScience, Wiley Online Library, and Inderscience, as shown in Figure 2. Each of these platforms hosts peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings relevant to lightweight cryptographic design, ensuring that all surveyed ciphers are derived from academically credible and accessible sources.
Figure 2. Cipher sources by databases.
The screening process ensures that only the most relevant literature resources are included in this survey by applying the article selection criteria outlined in Table 1. Given the large volume of publications retrieved from academic databases, it is essential to filter and retain only those that contribute meaningfully to the research objectives. Key criteria for selection include the publication year, type of article, language, research domain, cryptographic primitive, block size, key size, and encryption type. These criteria help maintain alignment with the intended research scope and ensure consistency in the evaluation process. By applying these guidelines, researchers can effectively translate the collected input into a structured and focused research output.
Table 1. Article inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Security evaluation criteria for LWBC (Table 2) presents a comparative overview of widely recognized security evaluation criteria for lightweight block ciphers as defined by NESSIE (2000), NIST (2015), and the National Cryptographic Standard (NCS) issued by the National Cybersecurity Authority (NCA) of Saudi Arabia (2020) [4]. Each standard outlines minimum requirements for key and block sizes, as well as the types of cryptanalytic evaluations expected. While NESSIE recommends at least a 128-bit key and 64-bit block with a focus on generic and side-channel attacks, NIST allows for a slightly smaller key size (minimum 112-bit) and emphasizes resistance to fault and side-channel attacks. In contrast, the NCS’s guidelines are tailored for national cybersecurity policies, requiring a minimum key size of 80 bits and a block size of at least 64 bits, while mandating robustness against differential and linear cryptanalysis, statistical validation through NIST test suites, and protection against side-channel threats. These criteria collectively serve as a benchmark to ensure the cryptographic soundness and practical security of LWBCs [5], especially for IoTs and embedded applications.
Table 2. Security evaluation criteria for lightweight block cipher.

3. Classification of Lightweight Block Ciphers

To illustrate the classification hierarchy of cryptographic algorithms, highlighting where lightweight block ciphers (LWBCs) fit within the broader context of symmetric cryptography. The LWBCs are further divided into five main structural types: SPN, FN, GFN, ARX, and Hybrid, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Classification of lightweight cryptography.
Lightweight block ciphers are fundamentally shaped by their internal structural design, which directly influences their cryptographic strength, efficiency, and hardware feasibility. Among the most prominent structures, the substitution-permutation network (SPN) architecture achieves strong diffusion and confusion through the layered use of S-boxes and permutations. Ciphers such as NVLC, DoT, and HERMES illustrate the effectiveness of this structure in resisting cryptanalysis. However, SPNs often require more complex key schedules and consume more gate equivalents (GEs), which may lead to higher power consumption and increased silicon area—important considerations for constrained environments [6].
In contrast, Feistel network (FN) ciphers, such as GRANULE, TED, and FlexAEAD, split the data into two halves and iteratively process them through round functions. Their simplicity facilitates low-cost hardware implementations and makes encryption and decryption symmetric. Yet, due to the limited diffusion per round, Feistel ciphers typically require more rounds to achieve comparable security to SPN designs, which can impact processing time and energy use [7].
The generalized Feistel network (GFN) extends the classical Feistel architecture by allowing more than two branches—typically 4, 8, or more. Each round operates by applying round functions to selected branches and then permuting or rotating the positions of the branches. GFN designs enhance diffusion by enabling more flexible and parallel data mixing while maintaining invertibility. Variants such as Type-1 (alternating rounds), Type-2 (F-functions applied in parallel), and Type-3 (round-dependent permutations) are used to improve performance and security. GFNs are well-suited to lightweight environments because they allow for modular, scalable implementations and can leverage smaller, simpler round functions while still achieving high security margins across fewer rounds [8].
The addition-rotation-XOR (ARX) structure, seen in ciphers such as BRIGHT and SAND-2, ARX-based ciphers rely solely on three basic operations: modular addition, bitwise rotation, and XOR. These operations are inherently fast, data-independent, and highly parallelizable, making ARX ciphers attractive for software implementations on constrained processors. The absence of S-boxes eliminates the need for look-up tables, reducing memory usage and susceptibility to cache-based side-channel attacks. However, ARX ciphers typically require more rounds to achieve the same level of diffusion as SPN or Feistel-based designs. Well-known ARX-based LWBCs optimize their round constants, mixing layers, and key schedules to mitigate this and provide resistance against differential and rotational cryptanalysis [9].
Finally, hybrid structures blend elements from multiple architectures, aiming to balance the strengths of each. Examples include FeW and SFN, which combine features of SPN, ARX, and Feistel networks. These designs often yield more adaptable and well-rounded performance profiles but introduce design and verification complexity. Their multi-layered nature can complicate implementation and make formal security analysis more challenging, especially in real-time or reactive systems [10].
A thorough understanding of these structural distinctions is essential for selecting the most suitable cipher for specific IoTs application requirements.
Table 3 below categorizes all 58 surveyed lightweight block ciphers based on their structural design, providing a clear view of the algorithms belonging to each type. The number of ciphers in each category is as follows: SPN (19), FN (14), GFN (9), ARX (5), and hybrid (11).
Table 3. Lightweight block ciphers in this study.
The 58 lightweight block ciphers selected in this survey were chosen based on their publication between 2018 and 2025, ensuring a focus on recent advancements in the field. These ciphers represent a diverse range of structural designs, including SPN, Feistel, generalized Feistel, ARX, and hybrid models, which allows for a comprehensive structural and performance-based comparison. Selection criteria also included the availability of implementation metrics such as gate equivalents, key/block sizes, and round counts, as well as documented limitations or attack surfaces in the literature. By focusing on both widely cited and novel proposals, this survey aims to provide a balanced evaluation of contemporary trends and challenges in lightweight cryptographic design for IoTs and constrained devices. The characteristics of the selected algorithms were identified according to the article selection criteria outlined in Table 1, which align with the security evaluation benchmarks summarized in.

5. Comparative Analysis

This diagram, as presented in Figure 43, highlights the inherent trade-offs in the design of lightweight block cyphers concerning three critical factors: security, performance, and low-cost. Enhancing one aspect often diminishes either efficiency or strength in the others:
Figure 43. Trade-off triangle in lightweight cipher design.
  • Increasing security typically requires longer key lengths and more rounds, which raises cost and reduces performance.
  • Improving performance (e.g., by reducing rounds or using parallel architecture) may lower the cipher’s resistance to cryptanalysis.
  • Achieving low-cost (via smaller key sizes or serial processing) is ideal for IoTs devices but might compromise security or throughput.
This triangular relationship highlights the balance required in designing optimal lightweight ciphers.
Among the analyzed 58 lightweight block ciphers, several distinct trade-offs become evident.
Substitution-permutation network (SPN) ciphers such as NVLC, RARE, DoT, and HERMES exhibit high levels of confusion and diffusion by design, using complex S-boxes and structured permutation layers. These designs offer robust resistance to linear and differential cryptanalysis, making them suitable for security-critical IoTs deployments. However, this strength comes at a cost: SPN ciphers tend to consume more gate equivalents and power, with examples such as HERMES and IVLBC showing elevated implementation costs. Their typically more elaborate key schedules also increase resource usage and may introduce latency.
Feistel network (FN)-based ciphers such as GRANULE, TED, improved_DLBCA, and FlexAEAD prioritize structural simplicity. Their design facilitates low-overhead encryption and decryption, enabling deployment on minimal resource hardware. These ciphers often achieve high throughput and balanced performance, though they require more rounds to compensate for slower diffusion per round. As a result, their round count and latency may be higher compared to SPN counterparts, but their cost-efficiency and symmetrical structure remain advantages.
Generalized Feistel network (GFN) designs such as Shadow, HDLBC, and GFLE provide better data diffusion through multiple branches, which helps reduce the number of rounds needed. Their scalability and parallelism make them appealing for hardware-efficient applications. However, the increased complexity in round function coordination and key mixing can pose challenges in secure and efficient implementation, especially for ultra-constrained devices.
ARX ciphers, including BRIGHT, LiARX, and SAND-2, eliminate the need for non-linear S-boxes and instead use simple arithmetic (addition), bitwise rotation, and XOR operations. This makes them highly efficient in software and naturally resistant to timing and simple power analysis attacks. On the downside, maintaining strong non-linearity and diffusion without S-boxes requires careful round function design, and their resistance to certain cryptanalytic attacks may be weaker compared to SPN or GFN models.
Hybrid designs such as FeW, SFN, and GFRX attempt to strike a balance by incorporating features from multiple structures (e.g., combining ARX and SPN or SPN and Feistel). These ciphers can achieve versatile trade-offs in terms of speed, area, and security. Nonetheless, their structural complexity and difficulty in analyzing combined effects of different layers can complicate formal verification and hardware optimization.
This comparative overview highlights that cipher design often aligns with specific priorities. For example, SPISE and GFRX prioritize minimal gate count and efficient hardware implementation, making them ideal for ultra-constrained environments. In contrast, ciphers such as T-TWINE and Improved_SM4 emphasize robustness and broader cryptographic capabilities, even at the cost of higher hardware complexity. There is no universally optimal design; instead, each cipher reflects specific trade-offs tailored to unique performance, area, or security requirements. The pie chart in Figure 44 illustrates the structural classification of 58 lightweight block ciphers (LWBCs). The majority, 32.8%, follow the substitution-permutation network (SPN) structure, which is widely favored for its strong diffusion and simplicity in hardware and software implementations. Feistel network (FN) ciphers make up 24.1%, offering advantages in invertibility and symmetric design. generalized Feistel networks (GFNs) account for 15.5%, balancing flexibility and performance. Hybrid designs, which combine elements from multiple structures, constitute 19%, reflecting innovation in cipher construction. The smallest group, ARX-based ciphers, makes up only 8.6% and is typically used for high-speed, software-oriented encryption. This distribution highlights the dominance of SPN and FN models in lightweight cryptographic design.
Figure 44. Distribution of 58 ciphers by structure type.
A comprehensive comparison of 58 lightweight block ciphers proposed between 2018 and 2025 is provided in Table 4, detailing their structural classification, design parameters, implementation cost, and identified limitations to aid in performance and security evaluation.
Table 4. Comparative analysis of 58 LWBC.
Figure 45 illustrates the hardware implementation cost of 55 lightweight block ciphers based on their gate equivalents (GEs). This metric represents the area required for implementing each cipher in hardware, with a lower GE indicating better suitability for resource-constrained environments such as IoTs devices and embedded systems. The figure excludes three ciphers (Improved_RoadRunner, µ2, and RAZOR) due to the unavailability of reported GE data. Overall, the comparison highlights significant variability in hardware efficiency among modern lightweight block ciphers, underscoring the importance of careful selection based on implementation requirements.
Figure 45. Gate equivalents (GEs) of LWBC.
A distribution of lightweight block ciphers categorized by their gate equivalents (GEs), a measure of hardware implementation cost, as Figure 46 presents. The majority of ciphers fall within the 1001–1500 GE and 1501–2000 GE ranges, indicating moderate resource demands. A smaller group of ciphers achieves very low GE values (≤1000), which are ideal for ultra-constrained devices. A few ciphers require over 2000 GE, reflecting higher complexity. This distribution highlights the diversity in hardware efficiency across modern lightweight cipher designs.
Figure 46. Proportional distribution of LWBCs by GE range.

6. Discussion

The comparative analysis presented in this study underscores the diversity of LWBC (LWBC) designs, each optimized for distinct trade-offs among cost, performance, and security. A closer examination reveals that while some ciphers such as SPISE, Hybrid PRESENT and Salsa20, and GFRX achieve ultra-low hardware costs (≤1000 GE), they often adopt minimalist design strategies that may result in narrower security margins or simplified key schedules. Conversely, ciphers such as Improved_SM4 and T-TWINE occupy the higher end of the GE spectrum, reflecting their incorporation of robust cryptographic structures and resistance to differential, linear, and algebraic attacks.
Notably, a number of newer ciphers introduce advanced cryptographic properties such as tweakability (e.g., FlexAEAD, NDN) and involutiveness (e.g., IVLBC, INLEC, LELBC), which offer improved flexibility in authenticated encryption and enhanced resistance to implementation level attacks such as side-channel analysis. These features signal a shift in design philosophy—from simply optimizing for area or throughput toward incorporating structural attributes that enable secure composition and futureproofing in diverse application contexts.
Emerging design trends also reflect a blending of traditional models. Hybrid architectures (e.g., GFRX, SFN, FeW) are gaining attention for their ability to balance cryptographic strength and efficient implementation. Involutive ciphers in particular are drawing interest due to their symmetric encryption/decryption circuitry, which simplifies hardware reuse and reduces overall complexity. This aligns with the growing need for lightweight primitives that can be flexibly deployed in constrained environments without compromising on long-term security.
Overall, the findings suggest that no single cipher dominates across all criteria. Instead, each cipher presents a distinct balance of trade-offs. Future cipher development should continue to integrate structural innovations—such as tweakable frameworks and involutive rounds—while also offering quantifiable security margins and implementation efficiency across varied platforms.
Lightweight cipher structures each bring unique strengths and drawbacks. SPN ciphers often provide superior diffusion and confusion due to their structured substitution and permutation layers, but they typically require complex key schedules and higher gate equivalents, impacting cost and speed. Feistel-based designs, by contrast, are structurally simple and allow balanced encryption and decryption, making them efficient for constrained hardware despite needing more rounds for equivalent diffusion. ARX-based constructions achieve high-speed execution with low hardware complexity using only basic operations, though ensuring strong non-linearity can be more challenging. GFN and hybrid models offer increased versatility and scalability, but their implementation and analysis tend to be more complex. Additionally, the growing use of involutive and tweakable designs highlights an ongoing trend toward reducing code size, increasing efficiency, and enhancing error resilience in lightweight cryptographic implementations.

Emerging Design Trends in Lightweight Block Ciphers

Tweakable ciphers introduce a third input called a tweak, in addition to the plaintext and key. The tweak acts like a dynamic, nonce-based modifier that allows the same key to produce different ciphertexts for different contexts. This design is especially valuable for authenticated encryption, format-preserving encryption, and secure multi-user environments. In lightweight settings, tweakable ciphers such as FlexAEAD and NDN provide strong protection against related-key attacks and allow for efficient domain separation without rekeying, which is highly useful in constrained IoTs devices that perform multiple roles (e.g., sensing, communication, logging).
Involutive ciphers, such as IVLBC, INLEC, and LELBC, are designed so that the encryption and decryption processes use the exact same logic. This symmetry allows for significant resource savings in hardware, as the same circuitry can be reused for both operations. Involutive structures also simplify secure implementation, reduce code complexity, and can enhance resistance to certain implementation attacks, such as fault injection. For example, symmetric round functions can minimize timing variations and improve energy efficiency, crucial for low-power IoTs environments such as wearables and RFID tags.
Hybrid ciphers combine elements of different architectural paradigms typically SPN, ARX, and Feistel to achieve a balance between security and efficiency. By leveraging the strengths of multiple structures, hybrid designs such as GFRX, SFN, and FeW can mitigate the individual limitations of traditional models (e.g., the slow diffusion of Feistel or the S-box dependency of SPN) while maintaining compactness and scalability. These designs are particularly promising in contexts where performance and flexibility must be tailored to diverse hardware and software constraints.
These trends point to a new generation of lightweight ciphers that are not just minimal in area or power, but also adaptive, secure, and easy to implement across platforms. As IoTs systems increasingly demand multifunctional security primitives with low integration overhead, tweakable and involutive structures—especially when embedded into hybrid designs—offer a compelling blueprint for future cryptographic standards.

7. Conclusions and Future Directions

This study provides a detailed comparative analysis of 58 lightweight block ciphers, examining their internal structures, hardware efficiency, and security trade-offs. The findings demonstrate that lightweight cipher design is inherently multi-objective, requiring careful balancing of area, performance, and cryptographic strength. No single cipher dominates across all metrics; rather, each reflects distinct design priorities shaped by application-specific constraints.
Recent trends in cipher development reveal a growing emphasis on tweakable, involutive, and hybrid designs—highlighting a shift toward more flexible and implementation-aware cryptographic primitives. These architectures not only support efficient deployment in constrained environments but also introduce structural enhancements that can improve resilience against evolving attack vectors.
For researchers, this survey offers a benchmark for identifying design gaps and performance bottlenecks in existing ciphers. For practitioners in the IoTs domain, it serves as a practical reference for selecting appropriate lightweight cryptographic solutions based on specific resource, latency, or interoperability needs. Future research should focus on comprehensive platform-based benchmarking, rigorous evaluation of security margins, and the integration of lightweight cryptography into broader secure communication frameworks, including post-quantum and adaptive IoTs ecosystems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and R.M.; methodology, S.M.A.-N.; software, S.M.A.-N.; validation, S.S. and R.M.; formal analysis, S.M.A.-N.; investigation, S.M.A.-N.; resources, S.M.A.-N.; data curation, S.S. and R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.A.-N.; writing—review and editing, R.M.; supervision, S.S. and R.M.; project administration, S.S. and R.M.; funding acquisition, S.M.A.-N., S.S. and R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers, whose insightful comments and constructive suggestions helped us to significantly improve the quality of this paper. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by ChatGPT (4o model, GPT-4-turbo) in refining the grammar and enhancing the readability of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Kumar, S.; Kumar, D.; Dangi, R.; Choudhary, G.; Dragoni, N.; You, I. A Review of Lightweight Security and Privacy for Resource-Constrained IoT Devices. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2024, 78, 31–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Soto-Cruz, J.; Ruiz-Ibarra, E.; Vázquez-Castillo, J.; Espinoza-Ruiz, A.; Castillo-Atoche, A.; Mass-Sanchez, J. A Survey of Efficient Lightweight Cryptography for Power-Constrained Microcontrollers. Technologies 2025, 13, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rana, M.; Mamun, Q.; Islam, R. Lightweight cryptography in IoT networks: A survey. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2022, 129, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. National Cybersecurity Authority. National Cryptographic Standards; National Cybersecurity Authority: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. AZakaria, A.; Azni, A.H.; Ridzuan, F.; Zakaria, N.H.; Daud, M. Systematic literature review: Trend analysis on the design of lightweight block cipher. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2023, 35, 101550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Parvathy, K.; Nataraj, B.; Rajalakshmi, S.; Duraisamy, P. A Review on Lightweight Cryptographic algorithms in Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Applications (ICIRCA), Coimbatore, India, 3–5 August 2023; pp. 1448–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hatzivasilis, G.; Fysarakis, K.; Papaefstathiou, I.; Manifavas, C. A review of lightweight block ciphers. J. Cryptogr. Eng. 2018, 8, 141–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nyberg, K. Generalized feistel networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Crypotology and Information Security, Kyongju, Republic of Korea, 3–7 November 1996; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996; Volume 1163, pp. 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khovratovich, D.; Nikolić, I. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. In Fast Software Encryption, Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop, FSE 2010, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 7–10 February 2010; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; Volume 6147, pp. 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. VThakor, A.; Razzaque, M.A.; Khandaker, M.R.A. Lightweight Cryptography for IoT: A State-of-the-Art. June 2020. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.13813 (accessed on 13 June 2025).
  11. Al-Rahman, S.A.; Sagheer, A.; Dawood, O. NVLC: New variant lightweight cryptography algorithm for internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2018 1st Annual International Conference on Information and Sciences (AiCIS), Fallujah, Iraq, 20–21 November 2018; pp. 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Omrani, T.; Becheikh, R.; Mannai, O.; Rhouma, R.; Belghith, S. RARE: A robust algorithm for rapid encryption. In Proceedings of the 2017 12th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), Cambridge, UK, 11–14 December 2017; pp. 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shantha, M.J.R.; Arockiam, L. SAT-Jo: An Enhanced Lightweight Block Cipher for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), Madurai, India, 14–15 June 2018; Volume 2018, pp. 1146–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Beierle, C.; Leander, G.; Moradi, A. Rasoolzadeh. Craft: Lightweight tweakable block cipher with efficient protection against DFA attacks. IACR Trans. Symmetric Cryptol. 2019, 2019, 5–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Patil, J.; Bansod, G.; Kant, K.S. DoT: A new ultra-lightweight SP network encryption design for resource-constrained environment. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Data Engineering and Communication Technology, Pune, India, 15–16 December 2017; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer: Singapore, 2019; Volume 828, pp. 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Malutan, S.B.; Dragomir, I.R.; Lazar, M.; Vitan, D. HERMES, a proposed lightweight block cipher used for limited resource devices. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD), Timisoara, Romania, 10–12 October 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, B.T.; Li, L.; Wu, R.X.; Xie, M.M.; Li, Q.P. Loong: A family of involutional lightweight block cipher based on spn structure. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 136023–136035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jithendra, K.B.; Kassim, S.T. ACT: An ultra-light weight block cipher for internet of things. Int. J. Comput. Digit. Syst. 2020, 90, 921–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jha, P.; Zorkta, H.Y.; Allawi, D.; Al-Nakkar, M.R. Improved lightweight encryption Algorithm (ILEA). In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET), Belgaum, India, 5–7 June 2020; pp. 8–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Girija, M.; Manickam, P.; Ramaswami, M. PriPresent: An embedded prime LightWeight block cipher for smart devices. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2021, 14, 2462–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zakaria, A.A.; Azni, A.H.; Ridzuan, F.; Zakaria, N.H.; Daud, M. Extended rectangle algorithm using 3D bit rotation to propose a new lightweight block cipher for IoT. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 198646–198658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sliman, L.; Omrani, T.; Tari, Z.; Samhat, A.E.; Rhouma, R. Towards an ultra lightweight block ciphers for Internet of Things. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2021, 61, 102897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zakaria, A.A.; Halim, A.H.A.; Ridzuan, F.; Zakaria, N.H.; Daud, M. LAO-3D: A Symmetric Lightweight Block Cipher Based on 3D Permutation for Mobile Encryption Application. Symmetry 2022, 14, 2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gupta, K.C.; Pandey, S.K.; Samanta, S. FUTURE: A Lightweight Block Cipher Using an Optimal Diffusion Matrix. In Progress in Cryptology—AFRICACRYPT 2022, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cryptology in Africa, AFRICACRYPT 2022, Fes, Morocco, 18–20 July 2022; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 13503, pp. 28–52. [Google Scholar]
  25. Huang, X.; Li, L.; Yang, J. IVLBC: An Involutive Lightweight Block Cipher for Internet of Things. IEEE Syst. J. 2023, 17, 3192–3203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yan, Q.; Guo, Y.; Liu, W.; Chen, W.; Lu, Y. LIBC: A low-cost lightweight block cipher for IoT application. Phys. Scr. 2025, 100, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Song, Q.; Li, L.; Huang, X. LELBC: A low energy lightweight block cipher for smart agriculture. Internet Things 2024, 25, 101022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Feng, J.Y.; Li, L.; Yan, L.Y.; Deng, C.T. INLEC: An involutive and low energy lightweight block cipher for internet of things. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2024, 105, 101991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sun, W.; Li, L.; Huang, X. LTLBC: A low-latency lightweight block cipher for internet of things. Clust. Comput. 2024, 27, 9783–9794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bansod, G.; Patil, A.; Pisharoty, N. GRANULE: An Ultra lightweight cipher design for embedded security. Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2018, 1–12. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/600 (accessed on 7 July 2025).
  31. Al-Dabbagh, S.S.M.; Sulaiman, A.G.; Al Shaikhli, I.F.T.; Al-Enezi, K.A.; Alenezi, A.Y. Improving the cost factor of DLBCA lightweight block cipher algorithm. Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2018, 10, 786–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, J.; Li, W.; Bai, G. An improved S-Box of lightweight block cipher roadrunner for hardware optimization. In Proceedings of the 2018 China Semiconductor Technology International Conference (CSTIC), Shanghai, China, 11–12 March 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bansod, G.; Pisharoty, N.; Patil, A. MANTRA: An ultra lightweight cipher design for ubiquitous computing. Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput. 2018, 28, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marsola, E.; Antônio, J.; Xexéo, M. FlexAEAD v1.1—A Lightweight AEAD Cipher with Integrated Authentication. Enigm.-J. Inf. Secur. Cryptogr. 2019, 6, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  35. Aboshosha, B.; Dessouky, M.; Ramadan, R.; EL-SAYED, A. LCA-Lightweight Cryptographic Algorithm for IoT Constraint Resources. Menoufia J. Electron. Eng. Res. 2019, 28, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Encarnacion, P.C. Modified Round Function of SIMECK 32/64 Block Cipher. Int. J. Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng. 2020, 9, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Thorat, C.; Inamdar, V.; Jadhav, B. Ted: A lightweight block cipher for IoT devices with side-channel attack resistance. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Secur. 2020, 14, 83. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chen, B.W.; Xia, X.; Liang, Q.M.; Zhong, W.D. Lightweight design of SM4 algorithm and realization of threshold scheme. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1871, 012124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ragab, A.A.M.; Madani, A.; Wahdan, A.M.; Selim, G.M.I. Design, analysis, and implementation of a new lightweight block cipher for protecting IoT smart devices. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2023, 14, 6077–6094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Feng, J.; Li, L. SCENERY: A lightweight block cipher based on Feistel structure. Front. Comput. Sci. 2022, 16, 163813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sahay, R.; Lakshmi, L.; Dodhiawala, Z. LiteEncrypt: A Lightweight Block Cipher for Secure Communication in IoT Enabled Sensor. Internet Technol. Lett. 2024, e613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rana, S.; Mondal, M.R.H.; Kamruzzaman, J. RBFK cipher: A randomized butterfly architecture-based lightweight block cipher for IoT devices in the edge computing environment. Cybersecurity 2023, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dahiphale, V.; Bansod, G.; Patil, J. ANU-II: A fast and efficient lightweight encryption design for security in IoT. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Big Data, IoT and Data Science (BID), Pune, India, 20–22 December 2017; pp. 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bansod, G.; Patil, A.; Sutar, S.; Pisharoty, N. NUX: An ultra lightweight cipher design for security in pervasive computing. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2017, 9, 5238–5251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Salunke, R.; Bansod, G.; Naidu, P. Design and Implementation of a Lightweight Encryption Scheme for Wireless Sensor Nodes. In Intelligent Computing, Proceedings of the 2019 Computing Conference, Volume 2, London, UK, 16–17 July 2019; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 998, pp. 566–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guo, Y.; Li, L.; Liu, B. Shadow: A Lightweight Block Cipher for IoT Nodes. IEEE Internet Things J. 2021, 8, 13014–13023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, Y.; Feng, J.; Zhao, Q.; Wei, Y. HDLBC: A lightweight block cipher with high diffusion. Integration 2024, 94, 102090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hu, M.; Li, L.; Huang, X.; Sun, W. GFLE: A low-energy lightweight block cipher based on a variant of generalized Feistel structure. Phys. Scr. 2024, 99, 85121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kuang, J.; Guo, Y.; Li, L. IIoTBC: A Lightweight Block Cipher for Industrial IoT Security. KSII Trans. Internet Inf. Syst. 2023, 17, 97–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yeoh, W.; Teh, J.S.; Ilyas, M.; Bin, S.; Sazali, M. µ2: A Lightweight Block Cipher. In Proceedings of the Computational Science and Technology: 6th ICCST 2019, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 29–30 August 2019; pp. 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, R.; Li, L.; Huang, X. LPHD: A low power and high diffusion lightweight block cipher. Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl. 2024, 52, 6424–6447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sakamoto, K.; Minematsu, K.; Shibata, N.; Shigeri, M.; Kubo, H.; Funabiki, Y.; Bogdanov, A.; Morioka, S.; Isobe, T. Tweakable TWINE: Building a Tweakable Block Cipher on Generalized Feistel Structure. In Advances in Information and Computer Security, Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Security, IWSEC 2019, Tokyo, Japan, 28–30 August 2019; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sehrawat, D.; Gill, N.S. BRIGHT: A small and fast lightweight block cipher for 32-bit processor. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019, 8, 1549–1556. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mishra, S.; Sadhya, D. LiARX: A Lightweight Cipher Based on the LTS Design Strategy of ARX. In Information Systems Security, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference, ICISS 2020, Jammu, India, 16–20 December 2020; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 12553. [Google Scholar]
  55. Chen, W.; Li, L.; Guo, Y. DABC: A dynamic ARX-based lightweight block cipher with high diffusion. KSII Trans. Internet Inf. Syst. 2023, 17, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shin, M.; Shin, H.; Kim, I.; Kim, S.; Lee, D.; Hong, D.; Sung, J.; Hong, S. SAECHAM: Secure and Efficient Lightweight Block Cipher CHAM Variant. IEEE Internet Things J. 2025, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, W.; Li, L.; Guo, Y.; Huang, Y. SAND-2: An optimized implementation of lightweight block cipher. Integration 2023, 91, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kubba, Z.M.J.; Hoomod, H.K. A Hybrid Modified Lightweight Algorithm Combined of Two Cryptography Algorithms PRESENT and Salsa20 Using Chaotic System. In Proceedings of the 2019 First International Conference of Computer and Applied Sciences (CAS), Baghdad, Iraq, 18–19 December 2019; pp. 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kumar, M.; Pal, S.; Panigrahi, A. FeW: A Lightweight Block Cipher. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2014, 2014, 326. [Google Scholar]
  60. Guo, Y.; Liu, W.; Chen, W.; Yan, Q.; Lu, Y. ECLBC: A Lightweight Block Cipher with Error Detection and Correction Mechanisms. IEEE Internet Things J. 2024, 11, 21727–21740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, L.; Liu, B.; Zhou, Y.; Zou, Y. SFN: A new lightweight block cipher. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2018, 60, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, X.; Tang, S.; Li, T.; Li, X.; Wang, C. GFRX: A New Lightweight Block Cipher for Resource-Constrained IoT Nodes. Electronics 2023, 12, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Anton, A.A.; Csereoka, P.; Capota, E.A.; Cioargă, R.D. SIMECK-T: An Ultra-Lightweight Encryption Scheme for Resource-Constrained Devices. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hediyal, N.; Divakar, B.P. NDN: An Ultra-Lightweight Block Cipher to Secure IoT Nodes. Int. J. Comput. Netw. Appl. 2025, 12, 227–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Singh, D.; Kumar, M.; Yadav, T. RAZOR: A Lightweight Block Cipher for Security in IoT. Def. Sci. J. 2024, 74, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Roy, S.; Baishnab, K.L. SPISE: A tiny, cost effective, speedy block cipher for low resourced devices. J. Eng. Res. 2023, 11, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, X.; Shao, C.; Li, T.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, C. GFSPX: An efficient lightweight block cipher for resource-constrained IoT nodes. J. Supercomput. 2024, 80, 25256–25282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yue, X.; Li, L.; Li, Q.; Xiang, J.; Hu, Z. QLW: A lightweight block cipher with high diffusion. J. Supercomput. 2025, 81, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Multimodal Hidden Markov Models for Real-Time Human Proficiency Assessment in Industry 5.0: Integrating Physiological, Behavioral, and Subjective Metrics
Previous
Cascaded Dual-Inpainting Network for Scene Text
Next