4 ms·

A counter-point that perhaps everyone is taking PQ a bit too seriously [1]. Personally, it seems reasonable to at least spend some effort preparing for it, giv

by thadt 3y ago

A counter-point that perhaps everyone is taking PQ a bit too seriously [1]. Personally, it seems reasonable to at least spend some effort preparing for it, given the rather long lead time required to develop, study and stress the constructions needed. It might be a long time (if ever) before cryptographically relevant quantum computers show up, but if they do, we'll be glad we had a decade or two to get ready. The alternative of scrambling at the last minute while everything gets cracked seems unenviable. [1] https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/heffalump_crypto.pdf https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/heffalump_crypto...

asah 3y ago
The risk is non-linear advances That's what everybody said about AI, then sudden advances ~2013 led to the situation today.
- upofadown 3y ago
  A non-linear advance probably wouldn't involve Shor's algorithm. As what happened with AI algorithms. What we call post quantum cryptography is really post Shor's cryptography.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    The difference is that we know Shor's algorithm will work once you solve certain engineering problems. As I understand it even the theoretical side of AI was always shooting in the dark.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      I don't think it's really fair to call these engineering problems. Creating a working quantum computer is at the bleeding edge of experimental physics. Sure, the theoretical physics behind a working QC is somewhat understood, but there are no successful experiments in the area. Even the theory is somewhat debatable, as creating a working QC pushes close to the boundaries of the measurement problem.
Tarq0n 3y ago
It also depends on what your personal requirements for forward secrecy are. As a major platform operator Google should aim somewhere towards the top of that distribution.
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  Why does Google need long-term forward secrecy? They may encrypt my sessions with keys, but most of their data is the huge index of the public web which is, by definition, public. I suppose they dabble in things like health records, but it seems like most of what they store and forward are public.
  - Tarq0n 3y ago
    Google operates among other things an office suite, a cloud platform, the largest repository of location services data in the world and an IoT health/lifestyle devices company.
    - xhkkffbf 3y ago
      And do they encrypt any of those details aside from while the data is in transit? My impression is that they don't.
      - ogurechny 3y ago
        Any big company has numerous data access restrictions. Some of them are obligatory and external, or required for certification. Even basic HDD/SSD decommission and transfer between projects strongly implies that old data was not stored as clear text.
      - remus 3y ago
        Im pretty sure they encrypt anything remotely sensitive at rest. A quick google found sources for this for cloud [1] and drive [2]. [1] https://cloud.google.com/docs/security/encryption/default-encryption https://cloud.google.com/docs/security/encryption/default-en... [2] https://support.google.com/drive/answer/10375054?hl=en-GB https://support.google.com/drive/answer/10375054?hl=en-GB
SamuelAdams 3y ago
> It might be a long time (if ever) before cryptographically relevant quantum computers show up Don’t be so sure. From the article, Google seems to believe quantum computers will arrive in the next 10 years.
- n4r9 3y ago
  Certainly three engineers in Google want to project that claim. I'd be interested to know if there's been a recent study of expert consensus on it.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    They're cryptographers (or, at least, two of them have cryptography doctorates, and are well known in the field). Cryptographers in generally are pretty warm to the idea of imminent quantum supremacy, as it's a motivator for a lot of interesting research. By which I mean, if you surveyed academic cryptographers outside of Google, you might get a pretty comparable answer.
- Asraelite 3y ago
  "in as soon as a decade". They think it's possible. I doubt anyone there thinks it's certain or even has a high probability.

by thadt 3y ago

asah 3y ago

The risk is non-linear advances That's what everybody said about AI, then sudden advances ~2013 led to the situation today.

upofadown 3y ago
A non-linear advance probably wouldn't involve Shor's algorithm. As what happened with AI algorithms. What we call post quantum cryptography is really post Shor's cryptography.
- n4r9 3y ago
  The difference is that we know Shor's algorithm will work once you solve certain engineering problems. As I understand it even the theoretical side of AI was always shooting in the dark.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    I don't think it's really fair to call these engineering problems. Creating a working quantum computer is at the bleeding edge of experimental physics. Sure, the theoretical physics behind a working QC is somewhat understood, but there are no successful experiments in the area. Even the theory is somewhat debatable, as creating a working QC pushes close to the boundaries of the measurement problem.

Tarq0n 3y ago

It also depends on what your personal requirements for forward secrecy are. As a major platform operator Google should aim somewhere towards the top of that distribution.

xhkkffbf 3y ago
Why does Google need long-term forward secrecy? They may encrypt my sessions with keys, but most of their data is the huge index of the public web which is, by definition, public. I suppose they dabble in things like health records, but it seems like most of what they store and forward are public.
- Tarq0n 3y ago
  Google operates among other things an office suite, a cloud platform, the largest repository of location services data in the world and an IoT health/lifestyle devices company.
  - xhkkffbf 3y ago
    And do they encrypt any of those details aside from while the data is in transit? My impression is that they don't.
    - ogurechny 3y ago
      Any big company has numerous data access restrictions. Some of them are obligatory and external, or required for certification. Even basic HDD/SSD decommission and transfer between projects strongly implies that old data was not stored as clear text.
    - remus 3y ago
      Im pretty sure they encrypt anything remotely sensitive at rest. A quick google found sources for this for cloud [1] and drive [2]. [1] https://cloud.google.com/docs/security/encryption/default-encryption https://cloud.google.com/docs/security/encryption/default-en... [2] https://support.google.com/drive/answer/10375054?hl=en-GB https://support.google.com/drive/answer/10375054?hl=en-GB

SamuelAdams 3y ago

> It might be a long time (if ever) before cryptographically relevant quantum computers show up Don’t be so sure. From the article, Google seems to believe quantum computers will arrive in the next 10 years.

n4r9 3y ago
Certainly three engineers in Google want to project that claim. I'd be interested to know if there's been a recent study of expert consensus on it.
- tptacek 3y ago
  They're cryptographers (or, at least, two of them have cryptography doctorates, and are well known in the field). Cryptographers in generally are pretty warm to the idea of imminent quantum supremacy, as it's a motivator for a lot of interesting research. By which I mean, if you surveyed academic cryptographers outside of Google, you might get a pretty comparable answer.
Asraelite 3y ago
"in as soon as a decade". They think it's possible. I doubt anyone there thinks it's certain or even has a high probability.