Strengthening Cryptographic Keys Using User’s Voice Biometric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, the most trustworthy tool to protect our information is based on cryptography.To enhance cryptography, it is highly important to select a robust cryptographic key that implies a high degree of uniqueness and randomness.In general, users lack proficiency in generating strong cryptographic keys.Furthermore, they often struggle with remembering how to generate strong cryptographic keys.This paper introduces an interesting method to abridge and boost the key generation step.The proposed method makes use of audio files that contain the user's voice biometric.A variable histogram-thresholding, which is calculated for each audio file distinctly, was used to get approximation peaks in the audio file and then to extract the discriminating features that ensure the uniqueness.The features will then be normalized and converted from a decimal to binary system to generate two 128-bit subkeys.Finally, to generate a robust AES-128-bit encryption key, these two subkeys are shifted, mixed, and XORed to enhance randomness.A dataset of more than 900 audio files is used.Testing and evaluation demonstrate how robust the suggested system is for helping users generate robust cryptographic keys.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".