3 ms·
>the future, when computers can more easily crack today's encryption No. Don't confuse symmetric with asymmetric (current public key) encryption. They aren't s
by xoa 9y ago
>the future, when computers can more easily crack today's encryption
No. Don't confuse symmetric with asymmetric (current public key) encryption. They aren't subject to the same potential attacks. Even with a theoretical fully scalable general purpose quantum computer, the best quantum attack vs a symmetric cypher is brute forcing with Grover's Algorithm, which provides a quadratic rather then exponential speed up. Ie., a n-bit key could be attacked in around 2^(n/2). This is trivially countered by doubling key length, a 256-bit key would still take 2^128 which would still be effectively impossible, and a 512-bit key would take 2^256. There is no future with any foreseen technology that would be able to brute force that, so when it comes to AES and the like using at least 256-bit keys it can be reasonably assumed that destroying the key means the data is lost (anything legacy running off 128-bit is reasonable to watch out for though, 2^64 is potentially tractable).
Present asymmetric crypto systems can theoretically [1] be attacked with Shor's Algorithm, which may be what you're kind of thinking of if you've heard about "today's encryption getting cracked" in the general media or scifi. And that would in fact be a big deal, it covers how most data is moved around in communications and the Internet at present. But QC isn't magic, and it doesn't just break anything. FDE and the like that just use symmetric crypto are safe.
1: "Theoretically" because that's if (big if) an ideal quantum computer that could be scaled to a sufficient number of qubits is created.
- codetrotter 9y ago> There is no future with any foreseen technology that would be able to brute force that, so when it comes to AES and the like using at least 256-bit keys it can be reasonably assumed that destroying the key means the data is lost (anything legacy running off 128-bit is reasonable to watch out for though, 2^64 is potentially tractable). But we can’t know for sure that AES or any other encryption algorithm doesn’t have some as-of-yet-unknown fatal flaw that would make it breakable in some way not necessarily even having anything to do with quantum computers?
- gizzlon 9y agoOf course not. But now you're getting philosophical :) Can you really now anything?
- codetrotter 9y agoHa ha yeah that is true. My point though was that it’s important to keep in mind if we decide to use throwing away the encryption key as or way of protecting the data.
- raarts 9y ago> Don't confuse symmetric with asymmetric (current public key) encryption After reading this multiple times, and looking up QC (Quantum Computing) and FDE (Full Disk Encryption), I got the following out of it: - symmetric encryption is safe for AES-256 and up - asymmetric encryption isn't getting cracked because QC isn't magic Is this a correct TL;DR ?
- prrls 9y agoThe computations used to do symmetric and asymmetric encryptions are completely different. Asymmetric encryption is just about factoring out big numbers into primes, if we simplify things a bit. And modern computers aren't very good at it, but Quantum Computer happens to be, and can break it. Read a bit about Shor's Algorithm[0]. On the other hand, symmetric encryption can be seen as a super convoluted and costly shift cipher. And it seems that Quantum Computing does not help much with dumb and costly mathematics like this. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm