Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The key sizes we use today are expected to hold against a Dyson sphere focused on breaking them with the best exploit we know today.

What size do you suggest?



It's not quantum-safe though.


Larger keys won't make the algorithms quantum-safe either.


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.


Which is why post-quantum algos were invented.


> 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.


> 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)


It's not quantum-broken though, it might just make it a bit faster. Just half a Dyson sphere.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: