3 ms·

It's not quantum-safe though.

• Avamander 2y ago
  It's not quantum-broken though, it might just make it a bit faster. Just half a Dyson sphere.
• marcosdumay 2y ago
  Larger keys won't make the algorithms quantum-safe either.
  • Tostino 2y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, larger keys require more qbits in a machine to all be coherent together to be able to break it. So it would be a slight increase in complexity, but if we are able to build a machine with enough qbits to crack 1024 keys, I don't think the engineering is all that far off from slightly scaling things up 2x-10x.
  • dist-epoch 2y ago
    Which is why post-quantum algos were invented.
    • TacticalCoder 2y ago
      > Which is why post-quantum algos were invented. Yup. And I don't even think quantum resistance was the goal of some of the algos that, yet, happen to be believed to be quantum resistant. Take "Lamport signatures" for example: that's from the late seventies. Did anyone even talk about quantum computers back then? I just checked and the word "quantum" doesn't even appear in Lamport's paper.
      • bawolff 2y ago
        > Did anyone even talk about quantum computers back then? Not unless they have a time machine. Shor's algorithm was discovered in the 90s (sure the concept of a quantum computer predates that, but i don't think anyone really realized they had applications to cryptography)