The head of Canada’s electronic spy agency warned Friday the advent of super-fast quantum computers will cripple current encryption methods for securing sensitive government and personal information within a decade.
They are working on solutions already, the same website learns us.
I was thinking about this, would they even crack the bitwise xorred encrypted chunks??
That’s a tough one, because they’re essentially on-time pads, with all the inputs spread out in unknown physical and network address locations. Even if quantum computers could hack a chunk, that wouldn’t be the whole file. If the file were also encrypted prior to self-encryption, I don’t see a vector to crack a whole file, or even a chunk. It’s the “million monkeys typing a million years and maybe accidentally produce the works of Shakspeare” problem. Omniscience is more straightforward.
Capturing the data maps seems the only way, which is a different problem. That’s one already threatened by key-loggers, etc.
I think we’re going to see that the move to the SAFE model will be essential, plus hardening physical and login security on the interface level.
Both, Xsalsa20 as stream cipher and Poly1305 as message authentication code are believed to be safe from attack by a large quantum computer. In fact almost all symmetric encryption algorithms with 256-bit key are considered secure.
By contrast, public-key algorithms like RSA, Diffie-Hellman, ECDH, ECDSA and EdDSA (the ed25519 is used in Safe), are all vulnerable to attack.
If I remember Correctly, “vulnerable to attack” for most of these is only reducing the keyspace by x^2. Taking a bit (or even half of the bits in worst case like rsa) off the attack of large keyspace encryptions, while annoying, can be worked around. 256 bit got turned into 128 and still want the security? Change to 512, now you have “old 256” security.
If I’m totally off, please let me know, but this is my understanding of happens when computers go quantum.
This will not help. Quantum computers aren’t faster, compared to classic computers, they just work completelly different way. The reason why quantum computers can easily break RSA and many other encryption systems is that those encryption systems are using prime numbers and the fact that it is really hard to bruteforce calculate big prime numbers to break those cyphers on current computers. But for quantum computers it is really easy to break them. They can calculate them in polynomial time, compared to exponentional time requred by classic computers. (check the algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor’s_algorithm )
The solution is simple, do not use encryption based on prime numbers. Read more here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
All that plus I believe that the patterns of prime numbers have been cracked, making it possible for most anyone to compute where the next ones will be.
Not sure of the veracity of these, but his other work sensibly explains phenomena reasonably in areas that conventional explanations are full of holes. Worth considering, especially if true.
Here are links to his books.
bull shit. There exists no theory yet on quantum computing, all you hear in media is hype/PR
Show me the logic for quantum computing and i admit such a thing might exist. You know, classical computing logic is straight forward. Show me the quantum equivalent.
This is all just a big deceit. If you know an experiment some yers ago was conducted and grants were gained. Later it was revealed the quantum computer did in fact make the computations classically. It is all a fraud.
I’m not an expert, but I doubt that the pattern of prime numbers has been cracked at this moment.
The latest news concerning prime patterns that I know of is that the last digit of primes doesn’t seem to be completely random. But I doubt that can be used to ‘crack’ large prime numbers.
I have already post this link, which explains how it works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm
No that is just obfuscation. It contains a mass of formulas that reduce to theoretical concepts.
Do you really believe that people on the cutting-edge would have manufactured a ‘quantum computer’ and then later learned that it did the computation classically? No, it was by design.
The whole filed of quantum computing is nothing more than a way to scam funding.
Currently we have AND OR NOT NAND NOR XOR
If you cannot point to me how the quantum operator works, you know you are sailing in a land of delusion.
This is the first time I have seen conspiracy theory about quantum computing. It is hard to argue with conspiracy theory believers, since they do not accepts facts, science and proves by definition. I will not argue about it with you. I simply do not think any arguments would change your mind.
Only argument that would change my mind is a quantum computer that works. One that can do something a classical computer cannot. I agree arguing about this is not fruitful, i just want to instill in your mind this conversation so after a decade of no quantum computing you will remember the reason.
What i mean is that you need to see something a quantum computer can do that a classical cannot, otherwise it is just a fraud done classically. BTW it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact one of the most respected teams claimed quantum computing, and later in more precise analysis admitted it was classical computing.
So, do you think google company is lying? https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/09/google-we-have-proof-that-our-quantum-computer-really-works/
If confirmed, this discovery could not only lead to iRobot-style artificial intelligence but also advance the US space program by light years.
Yes, i think this is just a big PR campaign (like the one before where they got proven wrong). Message me once something actually materializes and i will humbly admit i was wrong.
Eek, walking a thin line there.
The world we live in is obviously and demonstrably full of real life conspiracies (secret and often nefarious cooperation between people/groups).
I’ve no idea about quantum computers, but I’d be careful of using loaded language like ‘conspiracy theories’. Words like that are used to attack and discredit shrewd questions as well as to deride the tin-foil-hat brigade.
Containing facts doesn’t stop it being a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy theory and there is nothing wrong with that! It is not laughable to suggest people conspire together. I’ve heard ‘planned obsolescence’ called a crazy conspiracy theory before. Its madness I tell you, of course there are conspiracies around every corner and behind every closed door.
Not that I think every quantum computer scientist is really coordinating a scam.
Sorry, rant over, there are a lot of ‘conspiracy theories’ that deserve a lot more respect in my not-very-humble opinion. Anyone who thinks central banks don’t conspire to manipulate the gold/silver markets is twice the nutjob any chemtrails-tard is imo
Seems fair enough and compelling for SAFE adoption. But the least of our worries if q learning machines yield some form of SI will be keeping encryption going and a good early test of an SI, even an immature one, assuming it took an interest at all and responded in a way where we would be aware, would be the quick social hack of global encryption and possible lock out for much of the global system. If politicians can get some kind of SI. Without self direction or will they would predictably try this as a kind of preemption.
I’d have to agree with a lot of PR going around quantum computing.
@Username1 I agree that there has been some advancement along the lines of quantum computing
Having done some uni level study into quantum physics I can tell you that the field is as large as classical physics and is one reason they are looking for a unified theory.
The research needs a ton of money because there are so many fields to explore. Take comms using entanglement that is seeing some advancements. Networking using photon switches, still not sellable after 10 years after POC.
The point is that there is going to be a lot of papers produced that have one purpose and that is to secure funding. In the field of quantum whatever results are a long way off and funding is difficult, so the papers have to be juicy and promise much potential. Some almost promise the infinite probability drive is possible in our lifetime.
Some of the research is along the lines of “you cannot know the state of an electron without observing it and thus changing the state” and translating that into “the quantum state has infinite states at once and can produce the result in one go.” There is a lot of money going into that one and similar research is saying that in terms of traditional computing “get the result in one cycle” (bit like the old analogue computer which had at the time what people considered infinite states, but quantum being ever so more accurate and versatile)
research needs money, to get the money they need papers that promise much potential. Then the media runs with the potential which the researchers fuel. Can the potential be achieved? Well that depends on how creative the researchers are, or how creative they were with the paper.
Gone are the days when worthy research received money with a near certainty, money now only goes to the research with the most promise, simply because there is no longer enough money/resources to go around.
I accept what you are saying but at the same time in the US instance the corps are flush with cash but the squatters won’t put it to good use.