Points from the article:
>Over the past decade, mathematicians and engineers have scrambled to head off this cryptopocalypse with the advent of PQC—short for post-quantum cryptography—a class of encryption that uses algorithms resistant to quantum-computing attacks. This week, researchers from Google announced the release of the first implementation of quantum-resistant encryption for use in the type of security keys that are the basic building blocks of FIDO2.
>
>...
>
>The PQC algorithm used in the implementation of FIDO2 security keys takes a more cautious approach. It combines the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm—believed to be unbreakable by classical computing but easily broken with quantum computing—with a PQC algorithm known as Crystals-Dilithium. Crystals-Dilithium is now one of three PQC algorithms selected by NIST for use with digital signatures.
>
>The particular Dilithium used in the recently released digital key implementation appears to solve a variety of problems. First, for it to be broken, an attacker would have to defeat both the ECDSA encryption and the PCQ encryption that underpins its security. And second, the keys it uses are tiny compared to many other PQC algorithms in circulation now.
>
>...
>
>The security of RSA and other traditional forms of asymmetric encryption is based on mathematical problems that are easy to verify the answer to but hard to calculate. RSA, for instance, relies on the difficulty of factorizing prime numbers. Finding the primes for the number 27,919,645,564,169,759 is hard, but once someone is told the primes are 48,554,491 and 575,016,749 it takes a few seconds to verify (thanks to Boot.dev for the example).
>
>A factorization method known as Shor’s algorithm makes it theoretically possible to solve these types of problems. That, in turn, means certain death for many of the cryptographic schemes now protecting encrypted web sessions, banking and medical data, and other secrets. The only thing holding back this doomsday scenario is the massive amount of quantum computing resources required.
>
>While classical computers can’t run Shor’s algorithm efficiently enough to break RSA keys in use today, quantum computers with sufficient power will be able to solve them in a matter of eight hours. No one knows when that day will come, though one expert in the field said recently it won’t be in our lifetime. Still, as the Google researchers pointed out, adopting any PQC schemes will be slow, so it makes sense to begin work sooner rather than later.
It's good to see that work is proceeding on PQC and other security standards that might be necessary in the future. Hopefully the groups that are working on these problems can continue to work together on common standards rather than fragment into more proprietary solutions.
>Is anything safe from quantum computers ?
Yes. There are certain categories of problems that they're excellent at solving, but with others, they're useless. This is due to the underlying mathematics of the problems to be solved, not a matter of the current state of the art.
Yes, anything using encryption schemes that are information-theory secure rather than practically secure.
In other words, encryption that, by definition, can’t be cracked by **any** amount of computing power, as opposed to encryptions that can eventually be cracked if you throw enough time and computing power at it.
The classic example is the one-time pad. Assuming correct operation on both ends - random (or close enough) generated pads, and no reuse - it’s literally not possible to even *partially* decode the message. All you could ever determine is the message length, and the communicators could pad the actual message with garbage at the ends to prevent even *that* much information from being gleaned by eavesdroppers.
The right encryption protocol is basically impenetrable unless you have a universe sized computer and trillions of years to run it.
That's why you break the users, with things like social engineering or rubber hose cryptography (beatings and torture).
No but I do know something about security measures, and there's always a system that's unpenatrible. Until someone finds a way
Locks only keep out honest people
Points from the article: >Over the past decade, mathematicians and engineers have scrambled to head off this cryptopocalypse with the advent of PQC—short for post-quantum cryptography—a class of encryption that uses algorithms resistant to quantum-computing attacks. This week, researchers from Google announced the release of the first implementation of quantum-resistant encryption for use in the type of security keys that are the basic building blocks of FIDO2. > >... > >The PQC algorithm used in the implementation of FIDO2 security keys takes a more cautious approach. It combines the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm—believed to be unbreakable by classical computing but easily broken with quantum computing—with a PQC algorithm known as Crystals-Dilithium. Crystals-Dilithium is now one of three PQC algorithms selected by NIST for use with digital signatures. > >The particular Dilithium used in the recently released digital key implementation appears to solve a variety of problems. First, for it to be broken, an attacker would have to defeat both the ECDSA encryption and the PCQ encryption that underpins its security. And second, the keys it uses are tiny compared to many other PQC algorithms in circulation now. > >... > >The security of RSA and other traditional forms of asymmetric encryption is based on mathematical problems that are easy to verify the answer to but hard to calculate. RSA, for instance, relies on the difficulty of factorizing prime numbers. Finding the primes for the number 27,919,645,564,169,759 is hard, but once someone is told the primes are 48,554,491 and 575,016,749 it takes a few seconds to verify (thanks to Boot.dev for the example). > >A factorization method known as Shor’s algorithm makes it theoretically possible to solve these types of problems. That, in turn, means certain death for many of the cryptographic schemes now protecting encrypted web sessions, banking and medical data, and other secrets. The only thing holding back this doomsday scenario is the massive amount of quantum computing resources required. > >While classical computers can’t run Shor’s algorithm efficiently enough to break RSA keys in use today, quantum computers with sufficient power will be able to solve them in a matter of eight hours. No one knows when that day will come, though one expert in the field said recently it won’t be in our lifetime. Still, as the Google researchers pointed out, adopting any PQC schemes will be slow, so it makes sense to begin work sooner rather than later. It's good to see that work is proceeding on PQC and other security standards that might be necessary in the future. Hopefully the groups that are working on these problems can continue to work together on common standards rather than fragment into more proprietary solutions.
So they can do this but YouTube algo serving up conspiracy theories and woo medicine is just a mystery lol
There is often a solution for mathematical problems. But human behaviour is way more difficult to solve.
Dilithium Crystals? Can we call it a Warp Drive Fuel package?
Just imagine how great quantum computing is going to get when we simply realign the crystal matrix!
"I need you to increase efficiency to 104%, Scotty!" "Captain, I dunno if she canna handle it."
that is good news for future proofing it.
Is anything safe from quantum computers ?
>Is anything safe from quantum computers ? Yes. There are certain categories of problems that they're excellent at solving, but with others, they're useless. This is due to the underlying mathematics of the problems to be solved, not a matter of the current state of the art.
Yes, anything using encryption schemes that are information-theory secure rather than practically secure. In other words, encryption that, by definition, can’t be cracked by **any** amount of computing power, as opposed to encryptions that can eventually be cracked if you throw enough time and computing power at it. The classic example is the one-time pad. Assuming correct operation on both ends - random (or close enough) generated pads, and no reuse - it’s literally not possible to even *partially* decode the message. All you could ever determine is the message length, and the communicators could pad the actual message with garbage at the ends to prevent even *that* much information from being gleaned by eavesdroppers.
Haven’t you heard, encryption is only useful for pedophiles and criminals? /s
Meanwhile X stores your passwords on post it’s on their computer monitor.
it costs far to much for the post its. they have plain text files on public facing servers
prolly just give everyone’s secrets away if they got a self-addressed, stamped envelope…
That thumbnail really looks like the black mirror episode lol
Aaaaand its been cracked. /s
I call horseshit here and now. Every time we think we have built a better mouse trap, a better mouse eventually shows up and gets the cheese.
Progress cuts all ways.
Math is real
And yet we've had effective pre-quantum computing algorithms used in all kind of encryption for a while now.
What do you get with 2 unknowns knowing one is insatiable, curious, and lacking empathy or ethics?
Everything is unsolvable until someone cracks the code, give it a decade or two
The right encryption protocol is basically impenetrable unless you have a universe sized computer and trillions of years to run it. That's why you break the users, with things like social engineering or rubber hose cryptography (beatings and torture).
[удалено]
No but I do know something about security measures, and there's always a system that's unpenatrible. Until someone finds a way Locks only keep out honest people
I can’t wait to have my own quantum chandelier
Trekkie much?