Best Fit DNA-Based Cryptographic Keys: The Genetic Algorithm Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Cryptography has revolutionized information security by combining rigorous biological and mathematical concepts to encode original information in terms of a DNA sequence. Such schemes are crucially dependent on corresponding DNA-based cryptographic keys. However, owing to the redundancy or observable patterns, some of the keys are rendered weak as they are prone to intrusions. This paper proposes a Genetic Algorithm inspired method to strengthen weak keys obtained from Random DNA-based Key Generators instead of completely discarding them. Fitness functions and the application of genetic operators have been chosen and modified to suit DNA cryptography fundamentals in contrast to fitness functions for traditional cryptographic schemes. The crossover and mutation rates are reducing with each new population as more keys are passing fitness tests and need not be strengthened. Moreover, with the increasing size of the initial key population, the key space is getting highly exhaustive and less prone to Brute Force attacks. The paper demonstrates that out of an initial 25 × 25 population of DNA Keys, 14 keys are rendered weak. Complete results and calculations of how each weak key can be strengthened by generating 4 new populations are illustrated. The analysis of the proposed scheme for different initial populations shows that a maximum of 8 new populations has to be generated to strengthen all 500 weak keys of a 500 × 500 initial population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".