Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Computers Will Break the Encryption that Protects the Internet (economist.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Factorising numbers into their constituent primes may sound esoteric, but the one-way nature of the problem -- and of some other, closely related mathematical tasks -- is the foundation on which much modern encryption rests. Such encryption has plenty of uses. It defends state secrets, and the corporate sort. It protects financial flows and medical records. And it makes the $2trn e-commerce industry possible. Nobody, however, is certain that the foundation of all this is sound. Though mathematicians have found no quick way to solve the prime-factors problem, neither have they proved that there isn't one. In theory, any of the world's millions of professional or amateur mathematicians could have a stroke of inspiration tomorrow and publish a formula that unravels internet cryptography -- and most internet commerce with it.
In fact, something like this has already happened. In 1994 Peter Shor, a mathematician then working at Bell Laboratories, in America, came up with a quick and efficient way to find a number's prime factors. The only catch was that for large numbers his method -- dubbed Shor's algorithm -- needs a quantum computer to work. Quantum computers rely on the famous weirdness of quantum mechanics to perform certain sorts of calculation far faster than any conceivable classical machine. Their fundamental unit is the "qubit", a quantum analogue of the ones and zeros that classical machines manipulate. By exploiting the quantum-mechanical phenomena of superposition and entanglement, quantum computers can perform some forms of mathematics -- though only some -- far faster than any conceivable classical machine, no matter how beefy.
In fact, something like this has already happened. In 1994 Peter Shor, a mathematician then working at Bell Laboratories, in America, came up with a quick and efficient way to find a number's prime factors. The only catch was that for large numbers his method -- dubbed Shor's algorithm -- needs a quantum computer to work. Quantum computers rely on the famous weirdness of quantum mechanics to perform certain sorts of calculation far faster than any conceivable classical machine. Their fundamental unit is the "qubit", a quantum analogue of the ones and zeros that classical machines manipulate. By exploiting the quantum-mechanical phenomena of superposition and entanglement, quantum computers can perform some forms of mathematics -- though only some -- far faster than any conceivable classical machine, no matter how beefy.
The trouble is that with the quantum algorithms finding the key becomes the same order of difficulty as deciding the message if you know the key. Before decryption was O(N) and cracking was O(2^N), so you can increase the key size until you get the right trade-off of ease of use and security. If they are the same order then there may not be a key size that has a reasonable ease of use and security trade-off.
That said, this generally only applies to RSA. If you're using elliptic curve cryptography it discrete logarithms then you are probably still safe (since we haven't yet figured out how to get qubits to perform analogous operations without collapsing).
There is no other value to their analyses. Their track record shows that. The magazine is a nicely packaged nothing.
Agreed. The article is essentially the same rehash of, "tomorrow's computers will break today's encryption just like today's computers broke yesterday's encryption." Nothing to see here; we already know that tomorrow's encryption will be reinvented.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
People have things to hide not because there is anything wrong with them, but because they are private. Full stop.
What basic psychology I ever learned said precisely this, that it's normal, natural, and healthy for people to want privacy, and to 'share' when it's their choice. This is a fact despite what so-called 'social media' corporations have been trying to indoctrinate people with over the last 20 years or so.
In general. parent is saying ECC is still probably safe
The problem with ECC is the damn NSA. Fifteen or so years ago the NSA strongly endorsed moving to ECC to get ahead of the risk of quantum computing. Sadly, the specifics they suggested were poison: what the proposed was weak in a way the NSA knew about, but they hoped no one else would ever figure out. There's a lingering distrust for ECC as a result, perhaps unfairly.
And there's no good reason to choose ECC for "post-quantum" crypto when there are good alternatives
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.