4 ms·
I think that "having no known quantum attack" is a reasonable interpretation of "quantum resistant". If there were no possible "quantum attack" (under appropria
by tromp 6mo ago
I think that "having no known quantum attack" is a reasonable interpretation of "quantum resistant".
If there were no possible "quantum attack" (under appropriate complexity assumptions, such as EC-DLP not being in P), then we could call it
"quantum proof" instead of quantum resistant.
- DoctorOetker 6mo agoI understand what you mean, but I think such a concept or definition would be highly misleading: "having no known quantum attack" means every novel encryption method would be automatically "quantum resistant" for having had 0 adversarial attempts to find quantum or even classical weaknesses! There should be some measure of competence-level-adjusted man-hours of cryptographers and mathematicians trying to swing their favorite hammers at the problem; in order to estimate this "quantum resilience".
- defrost 6mo agoIn minutes, on a single computer, for example, is the lowest bar. * https://mathematical-research-institute.sydney.edu.au/quantum-encryption-algorithm-cracked-by-computer-running-magma/ https://mathematical-research-institute.sydney.edu.au/quantu... * https://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/ https://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/ Props to John Cannon, George Havas, Charles Leedham-Green, et al.