Model of Message Transmission across Parallel Route Groups with Dynamic Alternation of These Groups in a Multichannel Steganographic System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors present a model of data transmission in a steganographic system based on a modified Dijkstra's algorithm. The presented modification of the algorithm takes into account the imperative nature of secure in formation exchange in steganographic networks and allows to optimize the speed of information transmission. However, there are some major concerns as follows:
1. The introduction is not well written and needs to include a structure of motivation for the study and various challenges to be made more visible.
2. Some of your figures need improvement. Please also use the same font size for each figure.
3. In the literature, there are some works on secure in Internet network. They mainly use physical layer security techniques to ensure the safety of information during transmission phase. Compared with those works, the difference and contributions of this work can be further highlighted.
4. More related works on security transmission shall be discussed. Authors are suggested to review more new and relevant research to support their research contribution. Some refs could be useful, e.g., GPDS: A multi-agent deep reinforcement learning game for anti-jamming secure computing in MEC network; A novel deep policy gradient action quantization for trusted collaborative computation in intelligent vehicle networks.APMD: A fast data transmission protocol with reliability guarantee for pervasive sensing data communication. Pervasive and Mobile Computing
5. The simulation settings, seem to me to be incompletely described for reproducing the experiments. Provide more details of the simulation model.
6. The format of the paper shall be carefully checked.
7. There are also some typos in this paper. Please carefully go through the manuscript to improve its presentation.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Good afternoon!
Thank you for carefully reading our article. We tried to improve the presentation of the material in the article in accordance with your useful recommendations and important comments.
With respect,
authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Introduction and Clarity: The introduction is clear and sets the stage for the study's focus on steganographic systems and the proposed modification to Dijkstra's algorithm. It effectively outlines the problem and purpose of the study.
- Specificity: The text mentions a "new model of data transmission," but it could benefit from more specific details about what this model entails. Providing a brief overview of the key modifications to Dijkstra's algorithm would help the reader understand the innovation better.
- Methodology: The text briefly mentions that the algorithm has been tested on synthetic and real data, but it lacks specific information about the methodology used for these tests. Adding details about the testing setup and criteria for evaluation would enhance the paper's credibility.
- Results: While the text mentions an increase in the secrecy index and a decrease in the violation index as a result of the proposed model, it does not provide specific data or quantitative results to support these claims. Including actual numbers or statistics would strengthen the paper's argument.
- Keywords: The list of keywords is relevant and appropriate for the topic, helping readers quickly identify the paper's subject matter.
- Sentence Structure: The sentences are mostly well-structured and convey the intended meaning. However, some sentences are quite long and complex. Consider breaking them into smaller, more digestible sentences for easier comprehension.
- Word Choice: The choice of words is generally appropriate for the subject matter. Still, in some places, you could use simpler or more common synonyms to make the text more accessible to a wider audience.
- Clarity: The text is reasonably clear, but there are instances where the meaning could be clarified. For example, in the sentence "The obtained algorithm and data transmission model have been tested on synthetic data and data obtained from real devices," it could be more explicit about what "obtained algorithm" refers to.
- Transition Phrases: Adding transition phrases between sentences and paragraphs can help guide the reader through the logical flow of ideas more smoothly.
- Conciseness: While technical papers often require precision and detail, strive for conciseness where possible. For instance, you could consider condensing phrases like "improves the speed, reliability, and security of message transmission" to "enhances message transmission speed, reliability, and security."
- Verb Tense: Ensure consistency in verb tense throughout the text. For example, you use both the past tense ("have been tested") and the present tense ("improves") in the same context. Consistency in tense is essential for clarity.
Author Response
Good afternoon!
Thank you for carefully reading our article. We tried to improve the presentation of the material in the article in accordance with your useful recommendations and important comments.
With respect,
authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors of this research concentrates on the information exchange in steganographic networks. The authors proposed a new model for data transmission in a steganographic system based on a modified Dijkstra algorithm. The main idea of the proposed model is to use parallel groups of routes with dynamic alternation of these groups to improve the speed, reliability, and security of message transmission. Powered by a route-time matrix available only to the sender and receiver, the proposed scheme can hide not only the content of the transmitted information but also the fact of its transmission. The evaluation result shows the effectiveness of the proposed model on various structured steganographic systems. To make the submission stronger, I have the following suggestions:
(1) The paper should explain more clearly how the modified Dijkstra algorithm integrated with the proposed method. Providing a pseudocode or flowchart to illustrate the steps would be helpful. (2) It would be helpful for reader to understand the idea better if the authors could provide more detail about the route-time matrix, such as how it cooperates with the Dijkstra algorithm and how it is updated or maintained. (3) The discussion or comparisons with more recent related schemes, such as tfl-dt: a trust evaluation scheme for federated learning in digital twin for mobile networks, tcemd: a trust cascading-based emergency message dissemination model in vanets, and btmpp: balancing trust management and privacy preservation for emergency message dissemination in vehicular networks, instead of conventional schemes are suggested. (4) Step 1 in Section 4 shows that the Dijkstra algorithm is to determine the possible routes between sender and receiver. However, these are other algorithms designed for OSPF. To compare with algorithms like SPFA or Bellman-Ford can make the results more robust and convincing.
To sum up, I think this paper can be accepted if all the above problems are solved well.
good
Author Response
Good afternoon!
Thank you for carefully reading our article. We tried to improve the presentation of the material in the article in accordance with your useful recommendations and important comments.
With respect,
authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This article proposes a new data transmission model that aims to increase the confidentiality of steganographic systems and the model is based on the use of alternative transmission routes.
The article presents a review and robust theoretical basis, the demonstrations were also theoretical based on examples and cases.
I suggest that authors carry out empirical tests to explain or understand real-world phenomena by collecting concrete data, rather than relying on theories or preconceived ideas. As well as detailing the scientific methods in order to reproduce the empirical tests.
Author Response
Good afternoon!
Thank you for carefully reading our article. We tried to improve the presentation of the material in the article in accordance with your useful recommendations and important comments.
With respect,
authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is well revised, and I suggest it can be accepted.
Moderate editing of English language required
Reviewer 4 Report
Although the authors do not develop the empirical part, I agree that the simulation as presented can superficially fill this gap. The authors improved the article and therefore it can be accepted.
