People have already tried this, they called it 2DES. It is a classical example you learn in an intro to cryptography course because it actually does not add any security at all. You can do something called a "meet-in-the-middle" attack where you try to decrypt from the right side and encrypt from the left side at the same time, looking for collisions in the middle. This means that even though you use two keys, you don't have to attack them in conjunction you can attack them separately giving you only one extra bit of security.
The reason the D-Wave doesn't "break" RSA is that it can only do quantum annealing, which as you say is basically a search algorithm. It does not give exponential increases in efficiency like a theoretical "complete" quantum processor would. For instance, using Shor's algorithm one can factor an N bit number in time something like O(log^2 N), compared to the best algorithm on a classical computer which is something like O(N^(1/3)). In the best case, quantum annealing allows one to do a search which would normally take O(N) time on a classical computer instead in O(sqrt(N)) = O(N^(1/2)). It does not break any "complexity barriers" like a real quantum computer would, just lets you solve certain problems a bit faster.
This is a really big increase in efficiency, say going from a month worth of computation to solve a problem down to just an hour. But it is not anywhere near enough to break factoring since it would hypothetically take thousands of years to break on a classical computer. In fact, the best classical algorithm is actually slightly faster than quantum annealing because we happen to know that factoring is a problem that requires sub-exponential time to solve, O(N^(1/3)) on a classical computer vs O(N^(1/2)) on a D-Wave.
Your post belies a significant misunderstanding of complexity theory. If we could do what we do today, only faster, then the world would be quite a different place than it is now. If we could constructively show that P = NP, we could make strong AI, cure most if not all diseases and revolutionize every field of science for a start. Quantum computers are able to solve problems in polynomial time (denoted QP) that classical computers are not known to be able to (good ol' P). That is a much bigger deal than you are making it out to be. It is not the difference between 10 minutes and two hours, it is the difference between 10 minutes and the age of the universe.
Having said that, QP is not thought to be equal to NP. We still have encryption schemes which are resistant to attack by quantum computers. The world is not going to end, encryption will still work fine, we just have to do a little bit of planning ahead.
Check out the Logjam paper from CCS '15. The authors show an improved attack on 512-1024 bit TLS that would allow for decryption of traffic, then estimate how much money it would cost to implement and show that based on public and leaked information it is likely that the NSA is already doing this.
You are extremely ignorant of modern encryption. Ciphers like AES have existed for 15+ years and never had any significant attacks against them. To brute force AES-256 you would exhaust all the energy in the universe. AES is also not vulnerable to attacks by quantum computers. You act like the sky is falling when in reality there have been very few fundamental breaks on cryptographic primitives. Every significant attack in the last decade has been on implementations and protocols, which would be equally vulnerable in your imagined scheme.
Even against quantum computers, we already have public key encryption schemes to replace the vulnerable ones. This NIST request is more about standardizing than coming up with something new from whole cloth. Cryptography is working.
That is how society works dude. We incentivize and accommodate for actions that serve the overall society. Having a baby is a choice at a personal level but it is not an option at a societal level. It is the same reason we legally mandate that jobs have to give you time off for military service if you are in the reserves. Individually it is a choice (now at least) to join the military, but we need some people to do it or else the country collapses. Should employers be able to not hire employees in the reserves because they might leave in the middle of their job?
I don't really understand which windmills you think you are tilting at. Most people that are for maternity leave (including myself) are also for paternity leave. And disability benefits. These things are not mutually exclusive and they really don't change the debate here at all.
Now, they'll also take time off for pregnancy, and we'll see a drop. Now let's consider that a man will be more likely to take OT, or work longer hours.
I mean, that is kind of the point right? Someone has to have babies, or else we are all going to be in trouble. The fact that women get penalized for it is exactly the problem. Someone has to cook, clean and take care of children. That it is societally imposed mostly on women is the problem.
But nobody is talking about those jobs. We are talking about office jobs, retail jobs, health industry jobs, where women consistently get payed less for doing the exact same thing.
Also he is releasing all these criminals but the homicide rate is at a 50 year low. It's almost as if a lot of non-violent offenders were being kept in jail to fuel the prison industrial complex, and when you release them crime doesn't increase at all...
Funny how by every empirical measure, GDP, unemployment rate, household income, military casualties, etc., the US has substantially improved during Obama's presidency. But I guess your vague feelings are more meaningful than actual facts. Lets just see what happens during Trump's presidency shall we? If his cabinet picks of almost exclusively oil and wall street executives is anything to go by, it's going to be an interesting four years for the average american.
Have you been paying attention in North Carolina? The republicans lost the gubernatorial race so they are just burning the whole thing down before they leave. Probably it will all get reversed by the courts eventually, but that tells you what they really believe in and it is not the constitution or checks and balances. They want it all or else nobody can have it.
Pretty sure it's not insubordination since Trump is not in charge of any part of the government right now. Come back in February and we'll see what happens.
Holy shit lol, is your argument that we literally can't know which things are ok and not ok to do in a professional environment because there are too many possibilities? WHY CAN'T I JUST WAVE AROUND MY PENIS AT MY COWORKERS YOU ARE SUCH A NAZI
if someone tells you they are going to rape you to death, to your face, that's assault
But it happens all the time on the internet and is rarely, if ever, investigated. Probably most threats on the internet are not credible, but how do you know? If you are a semi-public figure the internet because a risk-free way to threaten and harass you, with guaranteed no consequences.
Oh that is such a good point, men do get raped and I am sure someone has had their dick posted online without their permission. Just like how last week it rained in California so there must not be a drought. It's all made up by the liberal media.
There are going to be people that say things or publish things you find distasteful. If you don't like it don't partake in that activity/event/business/group/etc.
Are you under the impression that when people get offended they somehow have legal power to make you stop saying the offensive thing? They are fighting speech with speech. What mental gymnastics do you have to jump through to believe that people should be able to say the things you agree with but then when people don't like those things they are not allowed to argue back?
It's really easy to say people don't need protection when nobody is every trying attack you. People don't try to sneak naked pictures of you in the bathroom and post them on the internet. People don't follow you around all day saying they are going to rape you to death. I think you might have a different opinion if they did.
Slashdot Mirror
People have already tried this, they called it 2DES. It is a classical example you learn in an intro to cryptography course because it actually does not add any security at all. You can do something called a "meet-in-the-middle" attack where you try to decrypt from the right side and encrypt from the left side at the same time, looking for collisions in the middle. This means that even though you use two keys, you don't have to attack them in conjunction you can attack them separately giving you only one extra bit of security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet-in-the-middle_attack
The reason the D-Wave doesn't "break" RSA is that it can only do quantum annealing, which as you say is basically a search algorithm. It does not give exponential increases in efficiency like a theoretical "complete" quantum processor would. For instance, using Shor's algorithm one can factor an N bit number in time something like O(log^2 N), compared to the best algorithm on a classical computer which is something like O(N^(1/3)). In the best case, quantum annealing allows one to do a search which would normally take O(N) time on a classical computer instead in O(sqrt(N)) = O(N^(1/2)). It does not break any "complexity barriers" like a real quantum computer would, just lets you solve certain problems a bit faster.
This is a really big increase in efficiency, say going from a month worth of computation to solve a problem down to just an hour. But it is not anywhere near enough to break factoring since it would hypothetically take thousands of years to break on a classical computer. In fact, the best classical algorithm is actually slightly faster than quantum annealing because we happen to know that factoring is a problem that requires sub-exponential time to solve, O(N^(1/3)) on a classical computer vs O(N^(1/2)) on a D-Wave.
Your post belies a significant misunderstanding of complexity theory. If we could do what we do today, only faster, then the world would be quite a different place than it is now. If we could constructively show that P = NP, we could make strong AI, cure most if not all diseases and revolutionize every field of science for a start. Quantum computers are able to solve problems in polynomial time (denoted QP) that classical computers are not known to be able to (good ol' P). That is a much bigger deal than you are making it out to be. It is not the difference between 10 minutes and two hours, it is the difference between 10 minutes and the age of the universe.
Having said that, QP is not thought to be equal to NP. We still have encryption schemes which are resistant to attack by quantum computers. The world is not going to end, encryption will still work fine, we just have to do a little bit of planning ahead.
Check out the Logjam paper from CCS '15. The authors show an improved attack on 512-1024 bit TLS that would allow for decryption of traffic, then estimate how much money it would cost to implement and show that based on public and leaked information it is likely that the NSA is already doing this.
You are extremely ignorant of modern encryption. Ciphers like AES have existed for 15+ years and never had any significant attacks against them. To brute force AES-256 you would exhaust all the energy in the universe. AES is also not vulnerable to attacks by quantum computers. You act like the sky is falling when in reality there have been very few fundamental breaks on cryptographic primitives. Every significant attack in the last decade has been on implementations and protocols, which would be equally vulnerable in your imagined scheme. Even against quantum computers, we already have public key encryption schemes to replace the vulnerable ones. This NIST request is more about standardizing than coming up with something new from whole cloth. Cryptography is working.
That is how society works dude. We incentivize and accommodate for actions that serve the overall society. Having a baby is a choice at a personal level but it is not an option at a societal level. It is the same reason we legally mandate that jobs have to give you time off for military service if you are in the reserves. Individually it is a choice (now at least) to join the military, but we need some people to do it or else the country collapses. Should employers be able to not hire employees in the reserves because they might leave in the middle of their job?
I don't really understand which windmills you think you are tilting at. Most people that are for maternity leave (including myself) are also for paternity leave. And disability benefits. These things are not mutually exclusive and they really don't change the debate here at all.
Now, they'll also take time off for pregnancy, and we'll see a drop. Now let's consider that a man will be more likely to take OT, or work longer hours.
I mean, that is kind of the point right? Someone has to have babies, or else we are all going to be in trouble. The fact that women get penalized for it is exactly the problem. Someone has to cook, clean and take care of children. That it is societally imposed mostly on women is the problem.
But nobody is talking about those jobs. We are talking about office jobs, retail jobs, health industry jobs, where women consistently get payed less for doing the exact same thing.
I know Trump does it a lot but that doesn't mean it is okay for you to just make up facts that seem like they fit your world view.
Also he is releasing all these criminals but the homicide rate is at a 50 year low. It's almost as if a lot of non-violent offenders were being kept in jail to fuel the prison industrial complex, and when you release them crime doesn't increase at all...
Funny how by every empirical measure, GDP, unemployment rate, household income, military casualties, etc., the US has substantially improved during Obama's presidency. But I guess your vague feelings are more meaningful than actual facts. Lets just see what happens during Trump's presidency shall we? If his cabinet picks of almost exclusively oil and wall street executives is anything to go by, it's going to be an interesting four years for the average american.
Have you been paying attention in North Carolina? The republicans lost the gubernatorial race so they are just burning the whole thing down before they leave. Probably it will all get reversed by the courts eventually, but that tells you what they really believe in and it is not the constitution or checks and balances. They want it all or else nobody can have it.
Really good and informative post here. Glad you made it.
Pretty sure it's not insubordination since Trump is not in charge of any part of the government right now. Come back in February and we'll see what happens.
Holy shit lol, is your argument that we literally can't know which things are ok and not ok to do in a professional environment because there are too many possibilities? WHY CAN'T I JUST WAVE AROUND MY PENIS AT MY COWORKERS YOU ARE SUCH A NAZI
if someone tells you they are going to rape you to death, to your face, that's assault
But it happens all the time on the internet and is rarely, if ever, investigated. Probably most threats on the internet are not credible, but how do you know? If you are a semi-public figure the internet because a risk-free way to threaten and harass you, with guaranteed no consequences.
Oh that is such a good point, men do get raped and I am sure someone has had their dick posted online without their permission. Just like how last week it rained in California so there must not be a drought. It's all made up by the liberal media.
I mean, neither of those is okay at a professional event. I don't understand why this is a hard concept...
There are going to be people that say things or publish things you find distasteful. If you don't like it don't partake in that activity/event/business/group/etc.
Are you under the impression that when people get offended they somehow have legal power to make you stop saying the offensive thing? They are fighting speech with speech. What mental gymnastics do you have to jump through to believe that people should be able to say the things you agree with but then when people don't like those things they are not allowed to argue back?
They should have included a copy of Playgirl magazine also
I REALLY want something like this to happen one day. I wonder what the comments on that slashdot article would be like...
It's really easy to say people don't need protection when nobody is every trying attack you. People don't try to sneak naked pictures of you in the bathroom and post them on the internet. People don't follow you around all day saying they are going to rape you to death. I think you might have a different opinion if they did.
Nothing. But giving it out at a professional event is misogynistic. I hope you can see the difference.
And soap operas are generally not part of corporate culture either. Good point I guess?
That's the old one from his campaign last year. There is a new one from a few weeks ago. http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/...