We should definitely panic because never before have we had to consider the possibility that today's state-of-the-art encryption scheme may be obsolete in... *reads article* ... Twenty-five years?https://twitter.com/techreview/status/1134306260692586497 …
-
-
Asymmetric crypto has been in pretty good ground until quantum, because we have confidence in the true hardness of the problem (e.g. prime factorization). Symmetric cryptography is mostly immune to quantum, but not as sure a theoretical bed, so advances break it more often.
-
Thanks for the explanation! I was definitely thinking of symmetric (and how that will impact our ability to prove that records in QLDB haven't been tampered with decades from now).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
... I think we can say with certainty that quantum breaking RSA won't happen due to some steady growth from 70 to 20 mill qubits. It will require a radically new paradigm, just as one would have thought in 2002. More radical than what has happened in the intervening 17 years.
-
Nice try, NSA plant account
You're right, but it's still true that "We now have a way to break RSA that doesn't break the laws of physics". Scaling is a very hard eng challenge, but some people don't want to bet that it's like Nuclear Fusion, rather than like semiconductors. - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@Colm: But quantum isn't that new... Quantum with regards to crypto was also known around that time. I read about Shor's and IBM factoring 15 = 3*5 in 2002 in the semi-mainstream press. The limitations seemed to be the same as today. This papers says we may only need 20 mill...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
... qubits to factor 2048-bits. Today we are at the very best at 70, and they are probably now of sufficient quality or durability (calculation takes 8 hrs) to be of relevance. Quantum still seems about as far out in the future as one might reasonably have estimated in 2002...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It seems quantum breaking crypto has gotten a lot of attention in recent years, not due to any major breakthrough but more due to more intense media stories, which has then fueled funding in studying both quantum computers and defenses.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That IBM article is from 2001 - doesn't look much different from reading a quantum article today (apart from being technically more detailed and accurate, and less hyped, as is the norm today!)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
50 qubits working for 90 microseconds is a long way from 20 mill qubits working for 8 hours!
-
Esp. considering the numbers haven't moved much since 2002.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.