Good question. I may have not explained very well. Let me give it a try. 1. I read the first part, with Gustav Schwerer etc as an argument against CRQC to ever

Good question. I may have not explained very well. Let me give it a try. 1. I read the first part, with Gustav Schwerer etc as an argument against CRQC to ever become possible, so moving to PQC is not needed. 2. I read the second part, about the hardness of attacking classical algorithms, for example the DES cracker as a motivation against attacks on crypto being an actual threat vector. Which ties in to point 1 as a CRQC would be very expensive and hard to use in practice. It is not a computer but a physics experiment. 3. He then talks about real threats and how they don't change very much. Points to OWASP top ten etc. I totally agree with him on point 1 and 2. I'm just as skeptical. But what I'm saying is that it is too late. We are quite possibly switching to algorithms that will never add any security. Spending huge resources and pushing unneeded changes to systems around the world. Telling the world that it is unnecessary will not change that fact. Coming to point 3. I don't agree with him. Yes, OWASP top 10 shows the same more or less trivial attack are the ones being used. Nobody use a zero day unless it is needed. If I can become sysadmin through a reused password or a misconfiguration of Teams, why use something more advanced? But I see him using this as an argument against ciphers being broken a real threat vector, and that is a different attack. The first one is an active attack against a system. It may be a nation state actor that wants to infiltrate, get a persistent access, exfiltrate and possibly destroy the system. It may be a ransomware organization. They will do the same thing, but their timeline is much shorter. (and of course the difference between a nation state and organized crime can be very blurry). But recording Internet traffic, and over long time (days, months, years, decades) try to decrypt it are solely of interest to a nation state. And for that attack and end game, what OWASP top ten looks like is totally irrelevant. It is not an active attack against a system. It is done in secrecy by entities with a lot of patience by entities that have huge resources. For them Quantum Computers are very interesting and relevant to discuss. But not in public. I guess that was a waay to long answer. But I hope it explained what I ment.