By Muhammed Shafin P
January 2026
UPDATE: Metaclass meant like in python there is some strict rules for it .isnt? , like that this also have some rules to not create weaker algos. Full update is in last of article.
Introduction
In traditional cryptography, a key unlocks data encrypted by a fixed algorithm. The algorithm remains constant; only the key changes. What if we inverted this relationship? What if the key itself generated the algorithm?
This article introduces a metaclass-inspired architecture for encryption - an evolution and continuation of my original encryption concept. This can be described as another concept built upon, a continuation version, or a newer version derived from my original design detailed in: Custom Prime-Based Key-Driven Encryption with Modulus Patterns and its extensive comment discussions.
This metaclass architecture represents a framework where keys don't just provide parameters but dynamically construct entire encryption methods.
The Metaclass Analogy
In Python, a metaclass is a class that creates classes. It's not an instance - it's a template for generating templates. Similarly, this encryption architecture functions as a "meta-algorithm" that generates algorithms.
# Traditional approach
algorithm = AES()
ciphertext = algorithm.encrypt(data, key)
# Metaclass approach
AlgorithmGenerator = MetaCrypto()
algorithm = AlgorithmGenerator.generate_from_key(key)
ciphertext = algorithm.encrypt(data)
In this model:
- The key is the constructor
- The algorithm is dynamically generated
- Each bit of the key can alter the fundamental encryption method itself
How Keys Generate Encryption Methods
Based on the theoretical framework described in my article and comments, a key could control:
Algorithm Structure Selection:
- Which prime map from thousands of possibilities
- Which representation method (Unicode-to-prime, bit-level, byte-block, reverse)
- Which modulus pattern sequence
- Which exponentiation rules
- Which ML model for further derivations
Operational Logic:
- First bit segment: selects map generation method
- Second bit segment: determines modulus pattern type
- Third bit segment: chooses transformation rules
- Subsequent segments: control implementation details
The Result: Two keys differing by one bit could generate completely different encryption algorithms, not just different parameters within the same algorithm.
The Theoretical Implications
Infinite Algorithm Space: Since keys have no maximum length cap, and each key generates a unique encryption method, the number of possible algorithms is:
Σ(n=128 to ∞) 2^n
Each represents a distinct encryption method, not just a parameter variant.
Multiplicative Security Layers: Security comes from:
- Guessing the correct key (infinite possibilities)
- Determining which algorithm it generated (infinite methods)
- Understanding how that specific algorithm transforms data
- Reversing the cryptographic operations
These layers multiply: (∞₁)^∞₂^∞₃^∞₄...
No Fixed Target: Attackers cannot analyze "the algorithm" because there is no single algorithm - there are infinite algorithms, each generated by a different key.
From Theory to Questions
This metaclass architecture raises fundamental questions:
Can cryptographic security emerge from algorithmic diversity rather than computational hardness?
Traditional cryptography relies on hard mathematical problems (factoring, discrete logs). This architecture suggests security might come from the space of possible algorithms being too vast to navigate, even when the meta-algorithm is known.
Does generation equal security?
Just because a key can generate infinite algorithms doesn't mean those algorithms are secure. Each generated algorithm must still resist cryptanalysis. The meta-algorithm must ensure every possible generated algorithm is cryptographically sound.
Is this analyzable?
Security requires proof, not just complexity. Can we formally prove that all algorithms generated by this meta-framework are secure? Or could certain keys accidentally generate weak algorithms?
The Critical Caveat
This concept has not been validated by security researchers. Everything described here is theoretical exploration. Yes, you can ask questions about individual algorithm security or performance - that's expected and I've already acknowledged these questions will arise.
However, the architecture inherently addresses many concerns through its design:
About Algorithm Security: Each generated algorithm isn't isolated - they all emerge from the same meta-framework that already incorporates the infinite possibilities from my original concept. The methods I proposed in my article and comments intersect and overlap with each other. One key creates its own algorithm, but that algorithm carries the infinite possibilities of the underlying system. Infinity × infinity = infinity. The security doesn't rely on one algorithm being secure - it relies on the infinite space of algorithms all being generated from a cryptographically sound meta-framework.
About Performance and Speed: Performance optimization is achievable through multiple methods I've already outlined:
- Adaptive exponent scaling based on key length
- Pre-computed lookup tables for decryption
- On-the-fly map generation instead of selection (even more powerful)
- Efficient key processing algorithms
- Computational optimization techniques detailed in my comments
About Extensibility: This is an open source concept. If anyone identifies flaws, they can propose fixes. If anyone wants to add new methods, they can contribute. The framework is designed to be extensible - new map generation methods, new derivation techniques, new optimization strategies can all be incorporated.
The validation I seek is from security researchers who will examine whether this meta-framework produces cryptographically sound algorithms across its infinite space.
Why Introduce This Now?
This metaclass architecture represents an evolution of my original concept - a continuation that takes the key-driven parameter generation idea to its logical conclusion: keys generating entire algorithms.
Original Concept: Key controls all parameters within one algorithm
This Evolution: Key generates the algorithm itself from infinite possibilities
This progression emerged naturally from exploring the implications of my original design. If a key can control maps, patterns, exponents, and transformations, why not have it control the algorithmic structure itself?
Whether this evolution strengthens the security model or introduces new considerations requires expert evaluation. By introducing it openly as a continuation of my work, I invite that evaluation from the cryptographic community.
The full theoretical framework, including all possibilities and implementation variations, is detailed in my article and its comment discussions. Those discussions explore:
- ML-driven map generation
- Segmented key processing
- Multiple simultaneous representation methods
- Adaptive computational optimization
- Cross-layered parameter derivation
All these possibilities exist within the meta-framework of "keys generating encryption methods."
Conclusion
A metaclass architecture for encryption - where keys generate algorithms rather than just parameterize them - represents a theoretical evolution of my original encryption concept. It can be viewed as another concept built upon my design, a continuation version, or a newer iteration exploring the full implications of key-driven cryptographic systems.
The security question shifts from "Is this one algorithm secure?" to "Does this meta-framework generate secure algorithms across its infinite space?" The performance concerns are addressable through the optimization methods I've detailed. The extensibility is ensured through open source development.
This is not a claim of having solved cryptography differently. This is a continuation of exploring whether algorithmic diversity, generated from keys with infinite possibilities, can be a foundation for security - building upon the infinite possibilities already present in my original concept where infinity × infinity = infinity.
The concept is introduced. The community can examine, critique, extend, and validate it. That's the nature of open source theoretical work.
UPDATE: Metaclass-Based Algorithm Construction
The term metaclass is used in a way similar to Python metaclasses, where strict rules are enforced during construction. In Python, a metaclass defines constraints that a class must follow. Likewise, this design introduces strict rules to ensure that weaker algorithms cannot be created.
Metaclass Rules
- The metaclass enforces mandatory construction rules.
- Any algorithm that does not satisfy these rules cannot be constructed.
- The purpose of these rules is to prevent the generation of weak algorithm instances.
Advanced Metaclass Capabilities
The metaclass supports API-like features such as:
- Method enforcement
- Overriding and validation
- Construction-time rule checking
An experimental mode is also supported:
- Instead of relying only on a cryptographic key,
- A manual construction process can be used.
Manual Construction and Method Selection
- Algorithm construction requires selecting a minimum number of methods (e.g., at least 5 methods, or n methods).
- These methods must be chosen before the algorithm is constructed.
- The metaclass validates both the selected methods and the construction rules.
To transport or reproduce the construction process, method-selection codes are used.
Example Construction Code
145-123-678-678-786
- Each number represents a specific method used during construction.
- Because the method space is infinite, the number of possible constructions is also infinite.
- This code must be shared as part of the algorithm configuration.
Salting and Derivation Customization
- A salting stage is included in the design.
- The salt specifies which hashing function is used before derivation.
- The derivation process itself can also be customized instead of using a fixed pipeline.
Summary
- The metaclass enforces strict construction rules.
- Only valid algorithms can be generated.
- Security is strengthened by combining enforced rules, method-selection codes, salting choices, and customizable derivation logic.
Original Theoretical Framework:
Custom Prime-Based Key-Driven Encryption with Modulus Patterns
Proof-of-Concept Implementation:
github.com/hejhdiss/custom-encryption-poc
Author: Muhammed Shafin P (@hejhdiss)
License: CC BY-SA 4.0
This is an open source concept. Flaws can be identified and fixed. New methods can be proposed and added. The framework is designed to evolve through community contribution and expert scrutiny.
Top comments (1)
Clarification / Note to Readers
I want to clearly clarify this point to avoid any misunderstanding.
This work is not a proven cryptographic system. I am not claiming formal security, real-world readiness, or that this design is already validated by cryptography research standards. This is explicitly presented as a theoretical and conceptual exploration, not as a finalized or certified encryption scheme.
I am not a cryptography researcher. I am a 17-year-old student who has just completed 12th grade, and this work comes from curiosity, learning, and independent exploration. Because of this, I openly acknowledge that the concept requires expert review, formal definitions, threat models, and mathematical proofs before it can be considered cryptographically sound.
This article is shared as open source specifically to invite critique, analysis, and correction from knowledgeable people. Please do not interpret this work as a claim of being unbreakable or production-ready.
The purpose of this work is to explore ideas, learn from feedback, and grow through discussion — not to present a finished cryptographic solution.