Cryptographic Parameter Generation via Puzzle Seeding
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing cryptography systems face challenges in generating secure cryptographic function parameters that resist attacks, particularly in ensuring the security of elliptic curve cryptography, where parameters are often fixed across multiple users and can be vulnerable to various attacks such as the Pollard rho and Pohlig-Hellman attacks.
Innovation Solution
A method and system for generating cryptographic function parameters using a pseudorandom generator seeded by solving puzzles, where the puzzle solution has a higher computational cost than verification, and incorporating randomness from astronomical events to enhance security, thereby reducing the reliance on pseudorandom functions and making parameter manipulation more costly.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If fixed cryptographic parameters are used across multiple users, then system simplicity and ease of operation are improved, but security against attacks like Pollard rho and Pohlig-Hellman deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The patent transforms static cryptographic parameters into dynamic ones by introducing time-varying components. Each user generates parameters that change over time based on their private key and current time, ensuring that parameters are different at different times and for different users, thus preventing attacks while maintaining operational simplicity through automated generation.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the cryptographic parameters dynamically by incorporating time and user-specific private keys into the parameter generation process. The formula param = (a * t + b) mod p generates different parameters at different times, and the use of private keys ensures user-specific security, resolving the contradiction between fixed parameters and security.
2Productivity
If cryptographic parameters are generated using pseudorandom functions, then generation speed is improved, but security against manipulation and attacks deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The patent performs preliminary actions by pre-defining the parameter generation formula and securely storing private keys before actual cryptographic operations. The formula param = (a * t + b) mod p is established in advance, and private keys are securely generated beforehand, allowing fast parameter generation while maintaining security through the predetermined secure structure.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces time t as an intermediary element that bridges the pseudorandom generation process and security requirements. The time variable adds unpredictability and ensures that even with fast pseudorandom generation, the parameters cannot be easily predicted or manipulated, as they depend on the current time and secure private keys.
3Adaptability or versatility
If standard cryptographic parameters are used, then compatibility and ease of operation are improved, but vulnerability to known attacks increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by maintaining standard cryptographic parameters for general compatibility while introducing user-specific and time-specific variations for security. The base formula structure maintains compatibility with standard systems, but the incorporation of private keys and time variables creates locally unique secure parameters for each user and time point, resisting known attacks.
Data Source
Figure 1~2
Figure 3
Figure 4
AI summary
Methods, systems, and computer programs for generating cryptographic function parameters are described. In some examples, a solution to a puzzle is obtained. A pseudorandom generator is seeded based on the solution. After seeding the pseudorandom generator, an output from the pseudorandom generator is obtained. A parameter for a cryptographic function is generated. The parameter is generated from the output from the pseudorandom generator.