> That said however we do have QC resistant key exchange and signature algorithms so I don’t think there is that much reason to panic.
Interesting. Then shouldn't we
(and PR people involved in QC) stop focusing on the cryptographical capabilities of QC, and start focusing on its other potential applications, like protein folding? Until now in the media, it seems like QC is synonymous with crypto
...
If it’s criminals stealing your passwords then it would take decades after QC until it would become universal enough to be a problem, by then likely current traffic would not be affected.
If it’s state level actors then you might be in a bigger bind.
If we take the NSA for example today there isn’t a single cryptographic system they can’t compromise.
And I’m using the term system intentionally as the NSA can’t break 4096bit RSA or AES or any other competent cipher.
They can and do break cryptographic systems on a daily basis by compromising the hardware, software and people which the system relies on.
But this is a very targeted and costly operation which means that general internet traffic isn’t looked at because it’s not worth it.
However if they also capture encrypted traffic and store it indefinitely as most key exchanges today are not necessarily QC resistant they could potentially go back and decrypt all that traffic.
This is why while the house is not on fire I think there is value in pushing post-QC ciphers sooner rather than later.
And even if the NSA can be kept in check we have little control over Russia and China and the list of actors capable of operating at large enough scales for this to be a problem grows bigger every day.
OFC they will, it would be criminally negligent of them not to.
However if the NSA is currently your adversary and you are worried of being targeted then pre QC or post QC encryption isn't going to matter push comes to shove they'll beat it out of you.
But as I said if the NSA or any other agency is currently capturing and storing encrypted data they can't afford to decrypt via targeted means they'll be able to retroactively decrypt it if they do manage to build a quantum computer and quantum supremacy would be a definite thing.
But right now there isn't an encryption the NSA can't break as long as there are people and additional assets involved in the process.
In fact I would be that for targeted attacks it would still bet easier to bribe, raid/hack the server farm or beat the snot out of someone in a black site than to use a quantum computer for quite a while after these things would be become a reality to factor the RSA private key corresponding with the key exchange of the traffic you want to decrypt.
> Interesting. Then shouldn't we (and PR people involved in QC) stop focusing on the cryptographical capabilities of QC, and start focusing on its other potential applications, like protein folding? Until now in the media, it seems like QC is synonymous with crypto ...
Interesting. Then shouldn't we (and PR people involved in QC) stop focusing on the cryptographical capabilities of QC, and start focusing on its other potential applications, like protein folding? Until now in the media, it seems like QC is synonymous with crypto ...