3 ms·
That MITM attack is considerably more fragile than just reading a one-time pad during transit, though.
by AlexCoventry 8y ago
That MITM attack is considerably more fragile than just reading a one-time pad during transit, though.
- marcosdumay 8y agoAsymmetric encryption is cheaper, survives storage, requires only the transmission of public data, and is not fundamentally flawed like that. It is also more versatile.
- akvadrako 8y agoBut non-quantum encryption hasn't been mathematically proven to be secure. In the real world, you'll probably always use both and only if large quantum computers become available.
- marcosdumay 8y agoQuantum computers are not needed for quantum encryption, and quantum computers do not break classical encryption in general, just the most used algorithms. They simply don't change the overall picture on this. Yes, non-quantum encryption has not been proven secure. That beats a known insecure systems at any time. You are also underestimating the cost of quantum crypto - it will only work on direct fiber, it can never be routed.
- akvadrako 8y agoMaybe some classical algorithm is immune to quantum computers, but none have been proven to be, unlike quantum encryption. Also, the Chinese have already demonstrated quantum channels over satellites - it doesn’t need fiber. The satellites are certainly acting as routers too.
- marcosdumay 8y agoQuantum encryption is broken today. Classical encryption may be broken, nobody knows. None of those is perfect, but one is better than the other.