9 ms·
NIST Announces First Four Quantum-Resistant Cryptographic Algorithms
- matt321 4y agoCRYSTALS-Kyber and CRYSTALS-Dilithium are references to star wars and star trek FYI to those who didn't know.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- capableweb 4y agoKyber is a fictional thing, so I understand that it's a Star Wars reference. But Dilithium is a real thing, so not sure why that would be a Star Trek reference? Couldn't it just be a reference to the real thing somehow?
- kemiller2002 4y agoI would guess that since the other is a Star Wars reference Dilithium is meant to be Star Trek. It follows the pattern, and Dilithium is a famous reference for those who follow Star Trek.
- camjw 4y agoWikipedia says that Dilithium exists when Lithium is in the gas phase i.e. not crystalline. So, CRYSTALS-Dilithium presumably refers to Dilithium Crystals which are often referred to in Star Trek.
- burkaman 4y agoDilithium is a real molecule, but dilithium crystals are a fictional Star Trek thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek)
- bwesterb 4y agoKyber is lead by Crypto Jedi: https://cryptojedi.org/peter/ https://cryptojedi.org/peter/ :)
- dchest 4y agoWho also created another PQC algorithm (that didn't make it past 2nd round) — NewHope https://newhopecrypto.org/ https://newhopecrypto.org/
- capableweb 4y agoIs there any alternative organizations like NIST but not-NIST? That NIST worked together with NSA to allow/insert backdoors into cryptography kind of left a sour taste in my mouth, and it's hard to trust them again after that.
- gfaster 4y agoI can't imagine with the added scrutiny the internet has gotten since then, especially from foreign governments, that NIST will be able to get away with anything like that again. But then again I may be completely ignorant as to the scope of NSA meddling.
- throw0101a 4y ago> […] that NIST will be able to get away with anything like that again. You say this like NIST was an accomplice (and not also a victim).
- capableweb 4y agoIf someone pressures (with just words and no threats) you into shooting another person, do you not at least partly hold some of the blame yourself? Not sure what consequences NSA told NIST would happen if they said no, when they pressured them, but from the look of things (https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/Vol13Iss2_Kostyuk-Landau_Dual-EC-DRGB.pdf https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/V...) it seems that NSA just asked NIST nicely to make Dual_EC_DRBG a FIPS even as it was weak, and NIST accepted that.
- burkaman 4y agoThere's a recent paper on this topic if you're looking for a very in-depth discussion: https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/Vol13Iss2_Kostyuk-Landau_Dual-EC-DRGB.pdf https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/V... The conclusion is no, there is no alternative right now.
- throw0101a 4y ago
- cubistack 4y agoDoes 'quantum-resistant' also imply 'P=NP' resistant?
- blendergeek 4y agoNo. Public key cryptography is impossible if P=NP. What we are left with is shared one-time-pads that can be arranged using quantum key distribution. I am not an expert so I will simply link the Wikipedia article on Computational Complexity Theory as my "source". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_the...
- bwesterb 4y agoIf there is an n^(100^100) algorithm that solves an NP-complete problem, then P=NP, but public-key cryptography is still safe because for any practical n it's still too hard to break. There are also public-key systems that are based on NP-complete problems that are easily broken, because n is chosen too small.
- blendergeek 4y agoThank you for schooling me on this. I wasn't considering n^(100^100) problems.
- a1369209993 4y agoYou're thinking of P=BQP (which still falls into the seems-to-not-be-true-but-we-can't-prove-it category, but physics runs BQP already, so we don't need P=BQP for BQP attacks like Shor and Grover to be issue).
- gnabgib 4y agoSort of a dupe of [NIST announces first PQC algorithms to be standardized](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31990276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31990276) (64 points, 23 comments) although this is probably a better link
- midislack 4y agoDid NIST get help from the NSA on these? Wink wink nudge nudge…
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- baby 4y agoShameless plug: I wrote about all these schemes in Chapter 14 on post-quantum cryptography of Real-World Cryptography https://www.manning.com/books/real-world-cryptography?a_aid=Realworldcrypto&a_bid=ad500e09 https://www.manning.com/books/real-world-cryptography?a_aid=... These are meant as a gentle introduction to the ideas and intuitions behind the schemes. The book is recent but some of that stuff (hash-based signatures) I started writing back in 2015 and is available on my blog: https://cryptologie.net/article/306/one-time-signatures/ https://cryptologie.net/article/306/one-time-signatures/ At the time the schemes had not yet been chosen, fortunately I picked the right ones :) don't have to rewrite that chapter (yet).