Table 1.

Comparison of image encryption techniques.

Category	Techniques Used	Strengths	Limitations
Chaos-based encryption	Tent and Bernoulli maps15, Arnold’s Cat Map and Langton’s ant18, 1D JoanS–MuraliP and 1D logical self-embedding chaos map24	Large key space, High randomness (NIST test), Good resistance to differential attacks	May suffer from key sensitivity and computational overhead in real-time scenarios
Hybrid approaches	Chaos + DNA Coding + Compressive Sensing29, Fibonacci Q-matrix + Galois Field S-box + Neural Networks33, Fractional Transforms + Optimization31	High security, Lower pixel correlation, Optimized performance through hybridization	Complex implementation, High computational cost, Some techniques lack robustness in real-world applications
S-box-based encryption	Custom S-Boxes with hyperchaotic systems26,32, Fourier-DNA coding + variable-base modulo operation28	Strong confusion-diffusion properties, Non-linearity enhances security	Performance depends on S-Box design and susceptibility to chosen-plaintext attacks
Transformation-based encryption	Fractional Shifted Moments + 2D Logistic-Sine Map30, Pixel Reorganization + Row-Column Scrambling34	Improved key sensitivity, Efficient scrambling techniques, High entropy values	May require additional diffusion steps for enhanced security
Enhanced chaotic maps	Fuzzy Logistic Map27, Improved Henon Map26	Improved complexity over traditional logistic maps, Large key space of	Not always tested against all types of cryptanalysis attacks