• Nur Rochmah Dyah Puji Astuti Informatics Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  • Dimas Panji Setiawan Informatics Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  • Dhias Cahya Hakika Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia



algorithm, asymmetric, cryptography, ElGamal, key generator, LUC.


In today’s era of digital, data security in communication channel becomes important factor to be considered during exchange of information. Cryptography is one of techniques to send and receive information securely through an insecure channel. Based on the number of keys used, encryption methods are categorized as symmetric and asymmetric cryptography. Compared to symmetric cryptography that often suffers from key management issues, asymmetric cryptography delivers higher level of data security. Thus, asymmetric cryptography is more preferred when security if the priority. To determine suitable algorithm, three essential aspects should be considered: security, speed, and prime numbers. This study aims to compare the application of asymmetric cryptographic algorithms between ElGamal and LUC algorithms in the key generation process. A comparative analysis of these two algorithms was conducted by evaluating the processing speed and prime numbers during key generation process to determine the advantages and drawbacks from ElGamal and LUC algorithms. The application in this study was developed using PHP programming language by following the Waterfall Model. Application testing involved two kinds of tests: (i) Black Box test and (ii) System Usability Scale (SUS) test. Results show the application developed from this study successfully performed the encryption, decryption, and checking of prime numbers from ElGamal and LUC algorithms. It displayed ciphertext, plaintext, and the speed of the encryption and decryption process from both methods. The black box test showed that all application functions follow the user's needs, while System Usability Scale (SUS) test obtained an average score of SUS interpretation of 83.75. This value means the adjective ratings was “excellent”, the grade scale was “B”, and the acceptability range was “acceptable”. It is concluded that the LUC algorithm superior to ElGamal in terms of the speed of encryption process. However, during the decryption process the LUC algorithm responded slower than ElGamal.

Author Biographies

  • Dimas Panji Setiawan, Informatics Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

    Informatics Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology

  • Dhias Cahya Hakika, Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

    Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology


Sharma, D.K.; Singh, N.C.; Noola, D.A.; Doss, A.N.; Sivakumar, J. 2022. A review on various cryptographic techniques & algorithms. Materials Today Proceedings 51: 104–109

J. Yashaswini, 2015 “Key Distribution for Symmetric Key Cryptography: A Review,” International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 3(5): 4327–4331, Jun. DOI:

H. I. Hussein, R. J. Mstafa, A. O. Mohammed, and Y. M. Younis, 2022, “An Enhanced ElGamal Cryptosystem for Image Encryption and Decryption,” in 2022 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSASE), Duhok, Iraq: IEEE, Mar. 337–342. DOI:

M. A. Panhwar, S. A. Khuhro, G. Panhwar, and K. A. Memon, 2019, “SACA: A Study of Symmetric and Asymmetric Cryptographic Algorithms,” presented at the IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 19: 48–55.

L. Shinder and M. Cross, 2008, "Understanding Cybercrime Prevention," in Scene of the Cybercrime, Elsevier, 505-554. DOI:

E. Conrad, S. Misenar, and J. Feldman, 2016, "Domain 3: Security Engineering (Engineering and Management of Security)," in CISSP Study Guide, Elsevier, 103-217. DOI:

A. Dutta, 2022. “Comparison of Modern Cryptography Methods,” Mathematics & Computer Science, preprint, DOI:

H. I. Hussein and W. M. Abduallah, 2021. “An efficient ElGamal cryptosystem scheme,” International Journal of Computers and Applications, 43(10): 1088–1094, DOI:

T. Elgamal, 1985."A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 31(4): 469-472, DOI:

N. M. S. Iswari, 2016. "Key Generation Algorithm Design Combination of RSA and ElGamal Algorithm," The 8th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, 1-5, DOI:

M. Othman, E. M. Abulhirat, Z. M. Ali, M. R. M. Said, and R. Johari, 2008. "A New Computation Algorithm for a Cryptosystem Based on Lucas Functions," Journal of Computational Science. 4(12): 1056-1060, DOI:

Z. M. Ali, M. Othman, M. R. Muhd, and M. N. Sulaiman, 2010,"Computation of Cryptosystem based on Lucas Functions using Addition Chain," in 2010 International Symposium on Information Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1082-1086. DOI:

A. N. El-Kassar and R. Haraty, 2005. “ElGamal Public-Key cryptosystem in multiplicative groups of quotient rings of polynomials over finite fields,” Computer Science and Information Systems, 2(1): 63–77, DOI:

D. Bleichenbacher, W. Bosma, and A. K. Lenstra, “Some Remarks on Lucas-Based Cryptosystems,” 1995 in Advances in Cryptology — CRYPT0’ 95, D. Coppersmith, Ed., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 963: 386–396. Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin, Heidelberg, DOI:

S. Mahajan and M. Singh, 2014. "Analysis of RSA Algorithm using GPU Programming," International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications. IJNSA, 6(4): 1-14 DOI:

S. Singh and R. Maini, 2011. "Comparison of data encryption algorithms," International Journal of Computer Science & Communication., 2(1): 125-127,

Z. M. Ali, M. Othman, M. R. M. Said, and M. N. Sulaiman, 2008, "An efficient computation technique for Cryptosystems based on Lucas Functions," in 2008 International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 187-190. DOI:

H. Mawengkang, A. F. Siregar, and S. Efendi, 2018. "Combination analysis of ElGamal algorithm and LUC algorithm in file security," IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering., 420(012130): 1-6, DOI:

Z. Sann, T. thi Soe, K. W. M. Knin, and Z. M. Win, 2019. "Performance comparison of asymmetric cryptography (case study-mail message)," Aptikom Journal on Computer Science and Information Technologies. 4(3): 105-111, DOI:

B. Youssef, 2012. "A Simulation Model for the Waterfall Software Development Life Cycle," International Journal of Engineering & Technology 2(5): 1-7. DOI:

Joosten, 2021. "The Black Box Testing and Loc Method Approach in Testing and Streamlining The Patient Registration Program," Jurnal Riset Informatika, 3(2): 137-144. DOI:

B. Klug, 2017."An Overview of the System Usability Scale in Library Website and System Usability Testing," Weave Journal of Library User Experience. 1(6). DOI:

J. Brooke, 2013 "SUS: A Retrospective," Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2): 29-40.

T. J. Wong, L. F. Koo, F. H. Naning, A. F. N. Rasedee, M. M. Magiman, and M. H. A. Sathar, 2021 “A Cubic El-Gamal Encryption Scheme Based On Lucas Sequence And Elliptic Curve,” Advances in Mathematics: Scientific Journal, 10(11): 3439–3447, doi: 10.37418/amsj.10.11.5.

A. Mousa, 2005. "Security and performance of elgamal encryption parameters," Journal of Applied Sciences. 5(5): 883-886, DOI:

S. Okyere-Gamfi, J. B. H. Acquah, and V. Akoto-Adjepong, 2020. "An Enhanced Asymmetric Cryptosystem using Multiple Key System," International Journal of Computers and Applications, 176(15): 18-26. DOI:

D. Coppersmith, Ed., Advances in Cryptology --2003. CRYPT0' 95: 15th Annual International Cryptology Conference Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 27-31, 1995 Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, DOI:

P. P. Sari, E. B. Nababan, and M. Zarlis, 2020 "Comparative Study of LUC, ElGamal and RSA Algorithms in Encoding Texts,", 148-151. DOI:

M. A. Will and R. K. L. Ko, 2015, "A guide to homomorphic encryption," in The Cloud Security Ecosystem, Elsevier. 101-127. DOI:







How to Cite