Image encryption plays a critical role in ensuring the confidentiality and integrity of visual information, particularly in applications involving secure transmission and storage. While traditional cryptographic algorithms like AES are widely used, they may not fully exploit the properties of image data, such as high redundancy and spatial correlation. In recent years, chaotic systems have emerged as promising candidates for lightweight and secure encryption schemes, but comprehensive comparisons between different chaotic maps and standardized methods are still lacking. This study investigates the use of three classical chaotic systems—Henon, tent, and logistic maps—for image encryption, and evaluates their performance both visually and statistically. The research is motivated by the need to assess whether these well-known chaotic systems, when used with proper statistical sampling, can match or surpass conventional methods in terms of encryption robustness and complexity. We propose a key generation method based on chaotic iterations, statistically filtered for independence, and apply it to a one-time-pad-like encryption scheme. The encryption quality is validated over a dataset of 100 JPEG images of size 512×512, using multiple evaluation metrics, including MSE, PSNR, NPCR, EQ, and UACI. Results are benchmarked against the AES algorithm to ensure interpretability and reproducibility. Our findings reveal that while the AES algorithm remains the fastest and most uniform in histogram flattening, certain chaotic systems, such as the tent and logistic maps, offer comparable or superior results in visual encryption quality and pixel-level unpredictability. The analysis highlights that visual encryption performance does not always align with statistical metrics, underlining the importance of multi-faceted evaluation. These results contribute to the growing body of research in chaos-based image encryption and provide practical guidelines for selecting encryption schemes tailored to specific application requirements, such as efficiency, visual secrecy, or implementation simplicity.
Alexandru et al. (Wed,) studied this question.