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
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI think I meant to respond to the parent comment, not yours. But that was hours ago.