3 ms·

What are you talking about? Without further details I'm under the impression that you're just invoking the mystery of quantum computing. "Anything I don't under

What are you talking about? Without further details I'm under the impression that you're just invoking the mystery of quantum computing. "Anything I don't understand is a threat."

Ajedi32 9y ago
A practical quantum computer would be capable of breaking almost all modern public key cryptography. There's an entire field of research dedicated to figuring out what we'll replace those algorithms with if quantum computing does become practical on a significant scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
- umanwizard 9y ago
  Specter and Meltdown have nothing to do with cryptography
  - has2k1 9y ago
    Most side-channel attacks have mainly been a threat to the implementation of cryptographic systems and algorithms. Now Specter and Meltdown have brought that concern to all systems. The gist of the parent post is, create complex systems and these things will bite.
stcredzero 9y ago
"Anything I don't understand is a threat." Yes. Something you don't know about can and may well kill you. These are the lessons of geography, astronomy, and physics. Crypto and computer security may well have the same properties.
gizmo686 9y ago
Much of modern crypto is based on the assumption that integer factorization and discrete logarithms are difficult problems. With quantum computers, this is known not to be the case.
- jpatokal 9y ago
  Known not to be the case if they actually worked in real life, that is. We're still waiting for a solid demonstration of quantum supremacy to prove that though.
  - mmaurizi 9y ago
    Yes. And we were waiting on an attack that used speculative CPU execution / branch prediction since 2006.
benjaminjackman 9y ago
It's definitely a possibility (not sure how likely though). "In the comments section of the Antonoupolos’s talk, reddit user @cfromknecht explains that there are flaws to the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), and it is very possible that quantum computers will be able to work faster than the transactions, therefore beating the encryption. “Whenever you spend bitcoins, you must include a signature that approves the spend, which is done using ECDSA” they explain, “If these signatures can be broken faster than transactions can be confirmed, an attacker could sign a different transaction that spends your coins before the original transaction is ever accepted.” https://edgylabs.com/quantum-computing-hacking-blockchain https://edgylabs.com/quantum-computing-hacking-blockchain
macawfish 9y ago
If anything, I'm invoking the mystery of mathematics. Here is a list of unsolved problems in mathematics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_m... Seriously though, I'm talking about something qualitative here. When I read about these side-channel attacks yesterday I had this crazy gut feeling about how exposed our technologies are to those who learn to understand them deeply. There's an complementary kind of arrogance to the one you're suggested: "anything I don't understand couldn't possibly be a threat... since I could never easily exploit it, it'd be way too hard for someone else to." But have you listened to the radiolab about the z-cash cryptography ritual? It's very enjoyable and has a spooky surprise ending: http://www.radiolab.org/story/ceremony/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/ceremony/
- drvdevd 9y ago
  I think I see where you are coming from and had, I think, a similar feeling. This class of attack sits in that “uncanny valley” of: 1) possibly easy to spot when looked for in the right way [edit: to use the QC analogy: search for classical algorithms which are easily broken] 2) totally systemic across almost all currently deployed technology is that what you mean?
  - macawfish 9y ago
    Yes, definitely, that's the kind of thing I'm thinking about, especially #2. Whereas a lot of exploits are happening with updateable software, it's rare that hardware gets hit so hard. This stuff hit on a deeper level. I hope I don't offend anyone too badly here with this medical analogy, but it's like finding out you have a bad flu vs. finding out you have Parkinson's. Or, it's like seeing someone in a different light for the first time... maybe you've known them for decades, but all of the sudden, you see them in this completely different way.

What are you talking about? Without further details I'm under the impression that you're just invoking the mystery of quantum computing. "Anything I don't understand is a threat."

Ajedi32 9y ago

A practical quantum computer would be capable of breaking almost all modern public key cryptography. There's an entire field of research dedicated to figuring out what we'll replace those algorithms with if quantum computing does become practical on a significant scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

umanwizard 9y ago
Specter and Meltdown have nothing to do with cryptography
- has2k1 9y ago
  Most side-channel attacks have mainly been a threat to the implementation of cryptographic systems and algorithms. Now Specter and Meltdown have brought that concern to all systems. The gist of the parent post is, create complex systems and these things will bite.

stcredzero 9y ago

"Anything I don't understand is a threat." Yes. Something you don't know about can and may well kill you. These are the lessons of geography, astronomy, and physics. Crypto and computer security may well have the same properties.

gizmo686 9y ago

Much of modern crypto is based on the assumption that integer factorization and discrete logarithms are difficult problems. With quantum computers, this is known not to be the case.

jpatokal 9y ago
Known not to be the case if they actually worked in real life, that is. We're still waiting for a solid demonstration of quantum supremacy to prove that though.
- mmaurizi 9y ago
  Yes. And we were waiting on an attack that used speculative CPU execution / branch prediction since 2006.

benjaminjackman 9y ago

It's definitely a possibility (not sure how likely though). "In the comments section of the Antonoupolos’s talk, reddit user @cfromknecht explains that there are flaws to the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), and it is very possible that quantum computers will be able to work faster than the transactions, therefore beating the encryption. “Whenever you spend bitcoins, you must include a signature that approves the spend, which is done using ECDSA” they explain, “If these signatures can be broken faster than transactions can be confirmed, an attacker could sign a different transaction that spends your coins before the original transaction is ever accepted.” https://edgylabs.com/quantum-computing-hacking-blockchain https://edgylabs.com/quantum-computing-hacking-blockchain

macawfish 9y ago

If anything, I'm invoking the mystery of mathematics. Here is a list of unsolved problems in mathematics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_m... Seriously though, I'm talking about something qualitative here. When I read about these side-channel attacks yesterday I had this crazy gut feeling about how exposed our technologies are to those who learn to understand them deeply. There's an complementary kind of arrogance to the one you're suggested: "anything I don't understand couldn't possibly be a threat... since I could never easily exploit it, it'd be way too hard for someone else to." But have you listened to the radiolab about the z-cash cryptography ritual? It's very enjoyable and has a spooky surprise ending: http://www.radiolab.org/story/ceremony/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/ceremony/

drvdevd 9y ago
I think I see where you are coming from and had, I think, a similar feeling. This class of attack sits in that “uncanny valley” of: 1) possibly easy to spot when looked for in the right way [edit: to use the QC analogy: search for classical algorithms which are easily broken] 2) totally systemic across almost all currently deployed technology is that what you mean?
- macawfish 9y ago
  Yes, definitely, that's the kind of thing I'm thinking about, especially #2. Whereas a lot of exploits are happening with updateable software, it's rare that hardware gets hit so hard. This stuff hit on a deeper level. I hope I don't offend anyone too badly here with this medical analogy, but it's like finding out you have a bad flu vs. finding out you have Parkinson's. Or, it's like seeing someone in a different light for the first time... maybe you've known them for decades, but all of the sudden, you see them in this completely different way.