33 ms·
There are two major points to clarify this characterisation: · Existing algorithms are not proven to be secure, even classically. Quantum encryption provides a
by akvadrako 8y ago
There are two major points to clarify this characterisation:
· Existing algorithms are not proven to be secure, even classically. Quantum encryption provides an additional level of safety, but against unknown and unexpected attacks.
· Practical quantum computers are very speculative, much more so than nuclear fusion or AI. They might not be built in the next million years.
- amirhirsch 8y agoseems like you’re getting downvoted for expressing quantum computing skepticism on Hacker News. I bet $150,000 that by January 1, 2040, a quantum computer will not exist that is able to factor a 2048-bit product of two primes. Anyone want to take me up?
- charleslmunger 8y agoNIST thinks that 2048 bit RSA will be secure until 2030. Presumably their analysis does not include a quantum computer, because if it did they wouldn't recommend 3072 bit RSA for security beyond 2030. Their analysis is indexed against DES (so cracking 2048 bit RSA using the best known methods would be equivalent to cracking a hypothetical 112-bit DES). It's possible that you're right that a quantum computer won't exist in 2040 that will break 2048 bit RSA, but that doesn't mean it won't be broken anyway by then.
- amirhirsch 8y agoOf course, for all we know factorization is in P or even NC (as the GP notes, we don’t really have proofs). I’m more hopeful we will find a proof of P!=NC or P!=NP than there being a quantum computer that beats RSA2048 in 21 years. It aught to be lower-hanging-fruit to prove that factorization is not in NC (polylog depth, polynomial component circuit) and therefore NC!=NP => (P!=NP or NC!=P) so at least one of the two probably true statements is true...