4 ms·

> I'm not a cryptographer - are security people excited about building all sorts of weird quantum protocols? No. In reality so-called quantum cryptography is

by hannob 9y ago

> I'm not a cryptographer - are security people excited about building all sorts of weird quantum protocols? No. In reality so-called quantum cryptography is completely impractical. Imagine an Internet where you can't send messages to people more than a few hundred kilometers away, with no wifi and no mobile Internet and which only works if you have pre-shared keys. That's the Quantum Internet (which apparently the EU just decided to fund with billions).

doktrin 9y ago
>> > I'm not a cryptographer - are security people excited about building all sorts of weird quantum protocols? > No. In reality so-called quantum cryptography is completely impractical What about building quantum safe protocols? Is that as a field any more interesting and/or viable?
- hannob 9y ago
  > What about building quantum safe protocols? Is that as a field any more interesting and/or viable? Yes. Plenty of stuff happening in that field. The challenge is: Right now we can choose between probably safe, but impractical (mcbits, sphincs) and practical, but with big questionmarks about how safe they are (newhope, sidh). The problem is: We really only trust crypto algos if they have been tested and researched over a long time, but lots of these things are pretty new.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  That's called post-quantum cryptography, not quantum cryptography.
  - doktrin 9y ago
    >> What about building quantum safe protocols? > That's called post-quantum cryptography, not quantum cryptography. As I understand it, "quantum safe" and "post-quantum" describe the same thing. I never used the term 'quantum cryptography'
    - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
      I think I meant to respond to the parent comment, not yours. But that was hours ago.
BatFastard 9y ago
Isn't this IDEAL for secure computing? Really its not that much different than how things work now. When we send a message around the world, its going through dozens of computers to get there. And wifi can always be an end point extension.

by hannob 9y ago

doktrin 9y ago

>> > I'm not a cryptographer - are security people excited about building all sorts of weird quantum protocols? > No. In reality so-called quantum cryptography is completely impractical What about building quantum safe protocols? Is that as a field any more interesting and/or viable?

hannob 9y ago
> What about building quantum safe protocols? Is that as a field any more interesting and/or viable? Yes. Plenty of stuff happening in that field. The challenge is: Right now we can choose between probably safe, but impractical (mcbits, sphincs) and practical, but with big questionmarks about how safe they are (newhope, sidh). The problem is: We really only trust crypto algos if they have been tested and researched over a long time, but lots of these things are pretty new.
CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
That's called post-quantum cryptography, not quantum cryptography.
- doktrin 9y ago
  >> What about building quantum safe protocols? > That's called post-quantum cryptography, not quantum cryptography. As I understand it, "quantum safe" and "post-quantum" describe the same thing. I never used the term 'quantum cryptography'
  - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
    I think I meant to respond to the parent comment, not yours. But that was hours ago.

BatFastard 9y ago

Isn't this IDEAL for secure computing? Really its not that much different than how things work now. When we send a message around the world, its going through dozens of computers to get there. And wifi can always be an end point extension.