Slashdot Mirror


Cryptographers Brace For Quantum Revolution

Tokolosh writes: An article in Scientific American discusses the actions needed to address the looming advent of quantum computing and its ability to crack current encryption schemes. Interesting tidbits from the article: "'I'm genuinely worried we're not going to be ready in time,' says Michele Mosca, co-founder of the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at the University of Waterloo..." and "Intelligence agencies have also taken notice. On August 11, the US National Security Agency (NSA) revealed its intention to transition to quantum-resistant protocols when it released security recommendations to its vendors and clients." Another concern is "intercept now, decrypt later", which presumably refers to the giant facility in Utah.In related news, an anonymous reader points out that the NSA has updated a page on its website, announcing plans to shift the encryption of government and military data from current cryptographic schemes to new ones that can resist an attack by quantum computers.

6 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. quantum-resistant by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Funny

    007 movie title

  2. Re:Back in the 1950's ... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing to see here.

    Until you open the box!

  3. Is a usable quantum machine possible? by slashways · · Score: 5, Interesting

    RSA factorization using today quantum registers is more than useless; The last year largest number processed was: 56,153. The quantum decoherence is faster when the number of particle increases; And to defeat the RSA some huge quantum registers are required. The only question: is a quantum machine that can process useful computing operation is even possible?

    1. Re: Is a usable quantum machine possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes and no.

  4. Re:Quantum Encryption by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would stand to reason that there will also come of this, quantum encryption which is not crackable by quantum computing.

    Ying and Yang are restored.

    Yes, but the problem is the "record now" and "decrypt later" concept. To be secure, you have to know how long the data you are passing can be expected to remain obscured. How long does it take to decrypt it by doing a brute force - try every possible key - approach? If the data you are protecting goes stale in a year, you need to be assured that a persistent attacker won't decrypt your transmission in that time. For a lot of data being passed around, the stale dates are like 30 years in the future, which is a serious problem.

    If advances in quantum computing happen and we get the huge jump in processing power they expect, what's currently a brute force time of years can become days or hours. This makes the recorded stuff from 5 years ago very valuable to the spooks who can now decrypt it overnight. And scares the daylights out of the folks who need that data to stay obscured for 30 years.

    So, yes, future stuff will be harder to brute force because the same advances in computing power that make brute forcing possible faster will make encryption faster too, but having a treasure trove of easy to decrypt stuff recorded is what is feared.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  5. Re:Time to go back by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't single pad encryption still safe, though less convenient?