Introduction
Digital technology has revolutionized the way human beings and corporations pursue their economic goals. Since the 1940s, the world has relied on emerging systems to produce information that could be coded and decoded depending on the goals of the user. As the level of data application and access increased, the demand for encryption has grown in an attempt to make information on different platforms and databases more secure. This trend led to the creation of the Data Encryption Standard (DES) in the 1970s. Such an idea was founded on the original algorithm that Horst Feistel had created five years earlier (Sivakumar et al., 2017). IBM managed to develop more advanced encryption for the National Bureau of Standards. Consequently, DES became a superior version developed using differential cryptanalysis (Sivakumar et al., 2017). This creation makes it a symmetric-key algorithm that supports the encryption and subsequent protection of digital information or data (Daimary & Saikia, 2015). It has a short key characterized by 56 bits.
Before the development of DES, a hardware security module (HMS) was the common method for protecting devices both offline and online. This innovation relied on the power of a personal identification number (PIN) to grant access. Since this technology was owned by a single person named Mohamed Atalla, it became necessary for different institutions and stakeholders to consider the need for a standardized model that led to the development of the DES standard (Daimary & Saikia, 2015). This encryption method works by relying on a similar key to decrypt or encrypt the intended message. The approach means that the sender and the reader or receiver need to be in possession or aware of the private key (Sivakumar et al., 2017). It fits in with the prior technology since it only added additional features to maximize security through a better and advanced encryption strategy.
Strengths
The DES model presents several strengths or advantages that make it an effective encryption technology. First, it is founded on a 56-bit key, something that makes it a relatively secure model (Daimary & Saikia, 2015). The argument behind this idea is that it would take hackers or criminals a long time before they guess or enter the right key to access the safeguarded data (Sivakumar et al., 2017). Second, the notion of having the same function that only needs reversal during decryption makes it convenient for hardware and software match or configuration (Sivakumar et al., 2017). Computer technologists would, therefore, find the innovative idea easy to apply in a wide range of scenarios or settings. Third, triple-DES improves the security level of the original algorithm, thereby increasing the security level.
Weaknesses
Although DES has been in use for many years, it presents specific challenges and weaknesses that make it inappropriate in the modern-day technological world. For instance, it has short keys of 56 bits while advanced ones have more security attributes and long blocks (Princy, 2015). This issue means that it would apply to different ciphers using the same 56-bit key (Princy, 2015). Due to the nature of this drawback, the security risk of DES has continued to increase significantly. Although this technology lacks design or functional flaws, it remains inadequate in providing the relevant defense against hacking, replication, or unauthorized access. This challenge exists because it relies on short keys (Princy, 2015). The division of the plaintext block becomes another aspect that makes the DES system insecure.
In terms of performance, the encryption model is fast but incapable of maximizing protection. Users have been focusing on this gap to consider or introduce a superior system of encryption that is capable of delivering positive results (Hameed et al., 2018). Using the total cost of ownership (TCO), it is quite clear that the buyer or user of DES will be unable to get value for money after installing it for data privacy. The reasoning behind this argument is that the chances of unauthorized access increases significantly (Princy, 2015). The cost of deployment (COD) guides companies to understand the connection between a specific system and the overall ability to provide long-term financial gains (Princy, 2015). The DES encryption technology might have a low COD in comparison with modern systems, such as the Advanced Encryption System (AES). Finally, those who want to implement the DES model in their systems will be disadvantaged because more companies and institutions are pursuing superior methods to support data decryption and encryption.
Opportunities
The nature of DES technology means that it presents various opportunities to those who rely on it for security purposes. The first outstanding one is that workers or employees would require additional training to be able to utilize it successfully and pursue their outlined organizational goals. The second opportunity is that more companies and institutions can capitalize on it to safeguard data without incurring unnecessary expenses (Patil et al., 2016). The third possible consideration is that many agencies or firms that rely on this technology will have to establish the right infrastructure. This achievement can prepare them for additional changes or replacements in the future. Such organizations will not spend more financial resources trying to acquire new systems to support the superior data encryption, innovation model. The fourth outstanding opportunity is that DES would still be relevant for emerging businesses and small firms shortly (Hameed et al., 2018). The ease of implementation, the reduced cost, and the ability to provide the intended security measures explain why such a prospect exists. Additionally, business organizations planning to sell their systems would encounter minimum challenges. Such an outcome is possible since DES remains applicable and recognizable in a wide range of industries or sectors across the globe.
Threats
Modern technologies and innovations have been changing very fast due to the power of research and development (R&D). DES has continued to suffer a similar fate as more companies and users continue to consider emerging systems that can provide the best security. The weaknesses associated with it have led to the innovation and implementation of the AES. The use of 56 bits keys makes it vulnerable and ineffective for confidential data. Hackers, phishers, and programmers can break or access it much faster. The leading security issues include: easy to compromise, weak block, and brute-force attacks (Patil et al., 2016). The major legal concern is that firms that implement DES stand a chance to be sued if hackers access private data and use it for malicious purposes.
Additionally, the established data privacy standards in many regions no longer recognize DES as an effective system (Alemami et al., 2019). Such a gap explains why many countries have gone further to consider the effectiveness of the AES system (Sivakumar et al., 2017). This trend is possible since AES has better features and is incapable of being breached (see Figure 1). This encryption method encounters numerous deployment concerns since a smaller number of businesses and organizations rely on it (Patil et al., 2016). This gap makes it impossible for users to link their systems and achieve their goals. Due to the nature of this threat, many individuals and leaders have been keen to identify and implement advanced encryption systems that can be deployed at the international level.
Summary: SWOT Analysis
Conclusion
The above discussion has identified DES as a powerful encryption technology that has been in use for decades. While it delivers the intended security measures, it still presents several weaknesses and threats that have led to the introduction and implementation of the AES as the acceptable global standard. The outlined summary can guide different professionals and engineers to focus on the strengths of DES and capitalize on the existing opportunities to develop a superior encryption system that can compete successfully in the market with AES. Such a move will encourage more people to implement the advanced version and eventually achieve the anticipated business goals.
References
- Alemami, Y., Mohamed, M. A., & Atiewi, S. (2019). Research on various cryptography techniques. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2S3), 395-405. Web.
- Daimary, A., & Saikia, L. P. (2015). A Study of different data encryption algorithms at security level: A literature review. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 6(4), 3507-3509. Web.
- Hameed, M. A., Jaber, A. I., Alobaidy, J. M., & Hajer, A. A. (2018). Design and simulation DES algorithm of encryption for information security. American Journal of Engineering Research, 7(4), 13-22. Web.
- Patil, P., Narayankar, P., Narayan, D. G., & Meena, S. M. (2016). A comprehensive evaluation of cryptographic algorithms: DES, 3DES, AES, RSA and Blowfish. Procedia Computer Science, 78, 617-624. Web.
- Princy, P. (2015). A comparison of symmetric key algorithms DES, AES, BLOWFISH, RC4, RC6: A survey. International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Technology, 6(5), 328-331. Web.
- Sivakumar, T. K., Sheela, T., Kumar, R., & Ganesan, K. (2017). Enhanced secure data encryption standard (ES-DES) algorithm using extended substitution box (S-Box). International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(21), 11365-11373. Web.