Its 2025 and to my knowledge we have a total of zero quantum computers that can even do basic first grade math.
post
replies:
This is a great talk, but it's ignoring the real issue in that it would need to be "in-line", which is not anywhere near possible. They sort of address that, but are talking about the cyphers themselves mostly.
I think we've reached the cusp where we can exchange new derivative keys on the fly per request without making too much of a dent in speed, but that comes with all kinds of tradeoffs on session length and convenience I suppose.
Edit: I guess there is another eventuality where governments just go and farm public keys and use them against targeted traffic. Not a good way to beat that right now.
replies:
I'll take every opportunity I can get to share https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Epgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf
replies:
IonQ's timeline doesn't look realistic. Perhaps IBM's is; idk anything about this space. I see it's been 6 years since quantum advantage has been demonstrated, but nothing useful has been done yet. Hard to speculate on timelines when the tech is still in its infancy.
... Which is why we all should immediately switch to post-quantum encryption possibly much weaker against conventional cryptanalysis. Thank you, NIST, NSA and other such respectable official bodies. Of course I believe you.
In general the whole "everyone should use standard state-of-the-art cryptography" turned out to be a con. And somehow the more "standard state-of-the-art" things were broken, the more was the confidence that they are what should be used. In the 90s "standard state-of-the-art" things were being broken casually, and non-standardized ciphers were made and used far more often than now, and somehow that was fine.
I dunno, we're all using AES with even hardware implementations of it, potentially backdoored, and with approved recommended S-boxes, without explanation how were these chosen ("by the criteria of peace on earth and goodwill toward men" is not an explanation, a mathematical paper consisting of actions you repeat and unambiguously get the same set would be that).
I think if you are afraid of your cryptography rotting, embracing some pluralism outside of cryptography is what you should do. Like maybe partitioning (by bits, not splitting into meaningful portions god forbid) the compressed data and encrypting partitions with different algorithms (one AES, one Kuznetchik, one something elliptic, one something Chinese).
replies:
We can only hope that Bitcoin gets pwned by quantum computers. It would be absolutely glorious.
replies:
all 20 comments