Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    5
  • comments
    5
  • views
    248

encrypt Using Abel-Ruffini theorem on encryptions

DoubleX

49 views

The complete microsoft word file can be downloaded here(as a raw file)

 

Summary

 

The whole password setup/change process is as follows:

1. The client inputs the user ID and its password in plaintext

2. A salt for hashing the password in plaintexts will be randomly generated

3. The password will be combined with a fixed pepper in the client software source code and the aforementioned salt, to be hashed in the client terminal by SHA3-512 afterwards

4. The hashed password as a hexadecimal number with 128 digits will be converted to a base 256 number with 64 digits, which will be repeated 8 times in a special manner, and then broken down into a list of 512 literals, each being either numeric literals 1 to 100 or any of the 156 named constants

5. Each of those 512 numeric literals or named constants will be attached with existing numeric literals and named constants via different ways and combinations of additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions, and the whole attachment process is determined by the fixed pepper in the client software source code

6. The same attachment process will be repeated, except that this time it’s determined by a randomly generated salt in the client terminal

7. That list of 512 distinct roots, with the ordering among all roots and all their literal expressions preserved, will produce the resultant polynomial equation of degree 512

8. The resultant polynomial equation will be encoded into numbers and number separators in the client terminal

9. The encoded version will be encrypted by RSA-4096 on the client terminal with a public key there before being sent to the server, which has the private key

10. The server decrypts the encrypted polynomial equation from the client with its RSA-4096 private key, then decode the decrypted version in the server to recover the original polynomial equation, which will finally be stored there

11. The 2 aforementioned different salts will be encrypted by 2 different AES-256 keys in the client software source code, and their encrypted versions will be sent to the server to be stored there

12. The time complexity of the whole process, except the SHA3-512, RSA-4096 and AES-256, should be controlled to quadratic time

 

The whole login process is as follows:

1. The client inputs the user ID and its password in plaintext

2. The client terminal will send the user ID to the server, which will send its corresponding salts for hashing the password in plaintexts and forming distinct roots respectively, already encrypted in AES-256 back to the client terminal, assuming that the user ID from the client does exist in the server(otherwise the login fails and nothing will be sent back from the server)

3. The password will be combined with a fixed pepper in the client software source code, and the aforementioned salt that is decrypted in the client terminal using the AES-256 key in the client software source code, to be hashed in the client terminal by SHA3-512 afterwards

4. The hashed password as a hexadecimal number with 128 digits will be converted to a base 256 number with 64 digits, which will be repeated 8 times in a special manner, and then broken down into a list of 512 literals, each being either numeric literals 1 to 100 or any of the 156 named constants

5. Each of those 512 numeric literals or named constants will be attached with existing numeric literals and named constants via different ways and combinations of additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions, and the whole attachment process is determined by the fixed pepper in the client software source code

6. The same attachment process will be repeated, except that this time it’s determined by the corresponding salt sent from the server that is decrypted in the client terminal using a different AES-256 key in the client software source code

7. That list of 512 distinct roots, with the ordering among all roots and all their literal expressions preserved, will produce the resultant polynomial equation of degree 512

8. The resultant polynomial equation will be encoded into numbers and number separators in the client terminal

9. The encoded version will be encrypted by RSA-4096 on the client terminal with a public key there before being sent to the server, which has the private key

10. The server decrypts the encrypted polynomial equation from the client with its RSA-4096 private key, then decode the decrypted version in the server to recover the original polynomial equation

11. Whether the login will succeed depends on if the literal expression of the polynomial equation from the client exactly matches the expected counterpart already stored in the server

12. The time complexity of the whole process, except the SHA3-512, RSA-4096 and AES-256, should be controlled to quadratic time

 

For an attacker trying to get the raw password in plaintext:

1. If the attacker can only sniff the transmission from the client to the server to get the encoded then encrypted version(which is then encrypted by RSA-4096) of the polynomial equation, the salt of its roots, and the counterpart for the password in plaintext, the attacker first have to break RSA-4096, then the attacker has to figure out the highly secret and obfuscated algorithm to decode those numbers and number separators into the resultant polynomial equation and the way its roots are attached by existing numeric literals and named constants
2. If the attacker has the resultant polynomial equation of degree 512, its roots must be found, but there’s no direct formula to do so analytically due to Abel-Ruffini theorem, and factoring such a polynomial with 156 different named constants efficiently is very, very complicated and convoluted

3. If the attacker has direct access to the server, the expected polynomial equation can be retrieved, but the attacker still has to solve that polynomial equation of degree 512 to find all its roots with the right ordering among them and all their correct literal expressions

4. If the attacker has direct access to the client software source codes, the pepper for hashing the password in plaintext, the pepper used on the polynomial equation roots, and the highly secret and obfuscated algorithm for using them with the salt counterparts can be retrieved, but it’s still far from being able to find all the roots of the expected polynomial equation of degree 512

5. If the attacker has all those roots, the right ordering among them and all their correct literal expressions still have to be figured out, and the salts and peppers for those roots has to be properly removed as well

6. If the attacker has all those roots with the right ordering among them, all their correct literal expressions, and salts and peppers on them removed, the attacker has effectively recovered the hashed password, which is mixed with salts and peppers in plaintext

7. The attacker then has to figure out the password in plaintext even with the hashing function, salt, pepper, and the highly secret and obfuscated algorithm that combines them known

8. Unless there are really efficient algorithms for every step involved, the time complexity of the whole process can be as high as factorial time

9. As users are still inputting passwords in plaintexts, dictionary attacks still work to some extent, but if the users are careless with their password strengths, then no amount of cryptography will be safe enough

10. Using numerical methods to find all the roots won’t work in most cases, because such methods are unlikely to find those roots analytically, let alone with the right ordering among them and all their right literal expressions, which are needed to produce the resultant polynomial equation with literal expressions exactly matching the expected one

11. Using rainbow tables won’t work well either, because such table would be way too large to be used in practice, due to the number of polynomial equations with degree 512 being unlimited in theory

12. Strictly speaking, the whole password encryption scheme isn’t a one-way function, but the time complexity needed for encryption compared to that for decryption is so trivial that this scheme can act like such a function

 

Areas demanding further researches:

1. The time complexity for factoring a polynomial of degree n with named constants into n factors analytically

2. Possibilities of collisions from the ordering among all roots and all their different literal expressions

3. Existence of efficient algorithms on finding the right ordering among all roots and all their right literal expressions

4. Strategies on setting up the fixed peppers and generating random salts to form roots with maximum encryption strength

 

Essentially, the whole approach on using polynomial equations for encryptions is to exploit equations that are easily formed by their analytical solution sets but very hard to solve analytically, especially when exact literal matches, rather than just mathematical identity, are needed to match the expected equations.

So it’s not strictly restricted to polynomial equations with a very high degree, but maybe very high order partial differential equations with many variables, complex coefficients and functions accepting complex numbers can also work, because there are no known analytical algorithm on solving such equations yet, but analytical solutions are demanded to reproduce the same partial differential equations with exact literal matches, as long as performing partial differentiations analytically can be efficient enough.


×
Top ArrowTop Arrow Highlighted