Research Article

Disbursal of Text Steganography in the Space of Double-Secure Algorithm

Table 6

Comparing the average hiding capacity methods using the UTF-8 method.

Message lengthCover text length (bytes)Capacity (%)DSTS

Gomal University (18 bytes)12911.4
Agriculture University Dera Ismail Khan (40 bytes)23081.7
Peshawar University, Peshawar, k. P. k, Pakistan (43 bytes)24401.76
University of Science and Technology, China, Hefei (49 bytes)27491.78
Average hiding capacity of DSTS using UTF-81.66
Gomal University (18 bytes)3195.6MDSTS
Agriculture University Dera Ismail Khan (40 bytes)5776.93
Peshawar University, Peshawar, k.P.k, Pakistan (43 bytes)6186.80
University of Science and Technology, China, Hefei (49 bytes)7416.61
Average hiding capacity of MDSTS using UTF-86.49
Gomal University (18 bytes)9591.9PHM
Agriculture University Dera Ismail Khan (40 bytes)20342.0
Peshawar University, Peshawar, k.P.k, Pakistan (43 bytes)21482.0
University of Science and Technology, China, Hefei (49 bytes)25441.9
Average hiding capacity of the PHM using UTF-81.95
Gomal University (18 bytes)2208.18CMPHM
Agriculture University Dera Ismail Khan (40 bytes)5267.60
Peshawar University Peshawar, k.P.k, Pakistan (43 bytes)5777.4
University of Science and Technology, China, Hefei (49 bytes)6237.86
Average hiding capacity of the CMPHM using UTF-87.76