4 ms·
There is no reason to believe one way or the other. Are there reasons to believe that the current post-quantum algorithms will actually be quantum resistant?
by tredre3 3y ago
There is no reason to believe one way or the other.
Are there reasons to believe that the current post-quantum algorithms will actually be quantum resistant?
- adastra22 3y agoSome, yes. Lamport signatures are almost certainly quantum resistant. But the small, compact schemes that are getting attention and competing in the NIST selection? Probably not.
- defrost 3y agoThere are reasons to believe that some candidates aren't even non quantum desktop computer resistant: https://mathematical-research-institute.sydney.edu.au/news/quantum-encryption-algorithm-cracked-by-computer-running-magma/ https://mathematical-research-institute.sydney.edu.au/news/q... https://www.securityweek.com/nist-post-quantum-algorithm-finalist-cracked-using-classical-pc/ https://www.securityweek.com/nist-post-quantum-algorithm-fin... ( Disclaimer: I worked on pre 1991 Cayley, born again post 1991 as Magma )
- adastra22 3y agoThis is the reason for my sarcastic response above. Attempts at making compact PQC are being broken left and right. If anything the line of battle is moving towards larger, more costly schemes at the moment. Complaining about proof size or validation speed right now is like pissing into the wind. You’re lucky if your PQC finalist scheme is even secure against a 2010 Mac mini in a year or two. Complaining that its proofs don’t fit into a MTU packet? That’s rich.