Improving the Robustness of RSA Encryption Through Input-Based Key Generation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cryptography, we use different methods to hide information and make sure it's safe when shared.This keeps hackers from getting at it.The RSA cryptosystem is a way to protect messages that uses two different keys.In this paper, a new method is suggested.It includes changing messages into hexadecimal values and then turning them into decimals.Public and private keys are generated based on the input of message's length, adding an increase of complexity to enhance the security of the cryptosystem.The proposed algorithm uses two different keys to encrypt and decrypt each character, this makes the cryptosystem increasing the difficultly for attackers trying to hack it.A comparison is made between the proposed algorithm and the original RSA, using NIST tests and measuring the running time of key generation, encoding, and decoding operations.The results show that the new algorithm provides a secure transmitting of data.The proposed algorithm enhances security over the standard RSA algorithm by using hexadecimal conversion, multiple keys, dual key encryption per one-character, increased randomness, and a more advanced cryptography method, offering improved resistance against attacks and protecting data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it