3 ms·
The difference is Shor is attempting to prove something. This article is by a security researcher who cares about staying ahead of threats. That is, a 10% chanc
by HWR_14 4y ago
The difference is Shor is attempting to prove something. This article is by a security researcher who cares about staying ahead of threats. That is, a 10% chance that RSA-2048 was broken means he's screaming about changing to -4096 or another standard. Because he is trying to make security systems reliable.
Or, to put it a different way, most papers focus on being right. To many publishers, "being right" means being true in what the paper is saying. In some other cases, "being right" means that the action you take is correct. Trying reading it as not a paper on "is RSA-2048 cracked" but "is RSA-2048 still safe".
- rezonant 4y agoIt sounds like you are talking about Schneier (the blog author and well known security researcher) and the parent post is talking about the paper Schneier is blogging about. And comparing it to another paper by a different author. I don't think there was a comparison between Schneier and Shor, or I missed it.
- HWR_14 4y agoI am talking about Schneier. I may have misread the parent post
- Strilanc 4y agoI agree that it makes sense for cryptographers to be jumpy around papers claiming improvements in quantum factoring, even if those papers are low quality and likely to be wrong. But that doesn't mean you stop calling the papers low quality and likely to be wrong. I guess I'd also be a lot more sympathetic if the paper had a paragraph in the abstract, or at least the intro and conclusion, where they explicitly positioned the paper as a wild idea that could work but probably won't but is still worth considering because of the risks.