5 ms·
We are doing that, just not everyone is as concerned by safety and make different tradeoffs against things like ease of use or accessibility. Different applicat
by xondono 2y ago
We are doing that, just not everyone is as concerned by safety and make different tradeoffs against things like ease of use or accessibility. Different applications have different tolerances and that’s fine.
If and when anything quantum is able to yield results (I wouldn’t worry much about this), increasing key size is pretty much meaningless, you need to move to other encryption schemes (there’s lots of options already).
- daneel_w 2y agoIn the case of RSA it's not meaningless to increase key size to fend off quantum computers. Quantum computing vs RSA is a case of being the largest contender, because quantum computing in itself doesn't definitively unravel the integer factorization problem.
- xondono 2y agoI meant “meaningless” in the sense that your encryption is then on heavy diminishing returns territory when it comes to defending against a qc. It will likely work for a while, but it’s a fundamentally wrong approach and you’re going to be exposed into recording & decryption attacks, instead of breaking your encryption today, I just store all your communications and wait for the next qc to be online, then fish for stuff that is still useful. It’s a silly approach if the timeframe is 50 years because most secret information goes stale quicker, but if you’re just waiting for say a year…
- bawolff 2y agoThat seems suspect to me. Getting a working qc to reasonable scale is the hard part. Once you have done that most of the hard engineering problems are solved. I doubt doubling its size at that point would be very much of a problem. If we are making (uninformed) predictions, i bet we wont see QC solving 1024 bit RSA in the next 15 years (at least), but once it does it will only take a year or two more to solve 4096.