3 ms·
Yeah the break of SIKE was pretty spectacular. The attacks on lattice-based crypto are less so. Still, the math is a lot more complicated than ECC or RSA, so it
by pclmulqdq 2y ago
Yeah the break of SIKE was pretty spectacular. The attacks on lattice-based crypto are less so. Still, the math is a lot more complicated than ECC or RSA, so it's plausible that it's also fundamentally broken, but we just haven't found out how.
At this point the only PQC algorithm I would trust with my data on its own is good old McEliece.
- tptacek 2y agoI'm not as convinced that the math on RSA is so simple compared to LWE cryptography. You'll see reputable cryptographers (well, one of them at least) confidently opining how we'll never break SHA2 and AES. I've never seen that for RSA or any ECDLP construction. SIKE, sure, all bets are off.
- adastra22 2y agoThe math for RSA is dead simple. But the theoretical foundations are not well established, no. It should be said though that SHA2 and AES also have unproven foundations for their security model. In a very strict sense both RSA and AES are equally vulnerable. But I think people would be more surprised if AES was catastrophically broken, and most surprised if SHA2 were, though there is little more than mathematical intuition underlying this.