2 ms·

I can't speak for the parent commenter, but just about every cryptosystem created has made the claim that the data secured will be secure for "longer than a typ

I can't speak for the parent commenter, but just about every cryptosystem created has made the claim that the data secured will be secure for "longer than a typical human lifespan", and yet time and time again that is shown to be false. Attacks are found, cryptosystems are broken, key strengths weakened, side channel attacks created, computers get faster, dedicated hardware is created, etc... Pretending that we got it 100% right this time seems naive at best, and adding a small amount of "defense in depth" by not giving everyone all of the encrypted data seems like a good place to start.

the8472 10y ago
> side channel attacks created not applicable to offline decryption and of fairly limited use in asynchronous communication > computers get faster, dedicated hardware is created not relevant with 256bit keys. Even grover's algorithm would only cut it down to 128bits which is still "boiling the oceans" territory. So at least in that area we have a lot more safety margin than in the past. Of course none of that is a guarantee that the data will stay secure, but you can't just generalize all attacks used in the past and then count them against a system where we learned from some mistakes and others simply aren't applicable.