https://techbeacon.com/security/newest-quantum-breakthrough-encryption-
killer

Just a few bits from the article about Quantum hype.

"Building a universal quantum computer, one that can perform
essentially any computation, is an extremely challenging technical
problem. We're far from having solved it."

"To crack a 2,048-bit RSA key, such as the ones that today's standards
require, a quantum computer will need at least a register of 2,048
entangled qubits. That's far from what's available today. And it seems
very unlikely that the current rate of progress in creating more
entanglement will make it possible in the next several years."

"For now, it seems hard to justify worrying about your encryption
becoming vulnerable to adversaries with quantum computers. It seems
very likely that NIST's effort to standardize encryption algorithms
that are quantum-safe will be completed and widely deployed well before
quantum computers are a serious threat to security."

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 00:41:59 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>https://techbeacon.com/security/newest-quantum-breakthrough-encryption-
>killer
>
>Just a few bits from the article about Quantum hype.
>
>"Building a universal quantum computer, one that can perform
>essentially any computation, is an extremely challenging technical
>problem. We're far from having solved it."
>
>"To crack a 2,048-bit RSA key, such as the ones that today's standards
>require, a quantum computer will need at least a register of 2,048
>entangled qubits. That's far from what's available today. And it seems
>very unlikely that the current rate of progress in creating more
>entanglement will make it possible in the next several years."
>
>"For now, it seems hard to justify worrying about your encryption
>becoming vulnerable to adversaries with quantum computers. It seems
>very likely that NIST's effort to standardize encryption algorithms
>that are quantum-safe will be completed and widely deployed well before
>quantum computers are a serious threat to security."

As the page in the OP's post said:
There are commercially available quantum computers, but they're
*limited to performing certain optimization calculations.*

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing

They have a long ways to go before I'll worry about my PGP files being
decrypted.

On 7/20/2023 3:41 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> https://techbeacon.com/security/newest-quantum-breakthrough-encryption-
> killer
>
> Just a few bits from the article about Quantum hype.
>
> "Building a universal quantum computer, one that can perform
> essentially any computation, is an extremely challenging technical
> problem. We're far from having solved it."
>
> "To crack a 2,048-bit RSA key, such as the ones that today's standards
> require, a quantum computer will need at least a register of 2,048
> entangled qubits. That's far from what's available today. And it seems
> very unlikely that the current rate of progress in creating more
> entanglement will make it possible in the next several years."
>
> "For now, it seems hard to justify worrying about your encryption
> becoming vulnerable to adversaries with quantum computers. It seems
> very likely that NIST's effort to standardize encryption algorithms
> that are quantum-safe will be completed and widely deployed well before
> quantum computers are a serious threat to security."
>

I'll be dead long before my comm's encryption scheme is broken.

And I'm not going to jail.

On Fri 21 Jul 2023 5:26 am, Anonymous wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 3:41 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> https://techbeacon.com/security/newest-quantum-breakthrough-encryption-
>> killer
>>
>> Just a few bits from the article about Quantum hype.
>>
>> "Building a universal quantum computer, one that can perform
>> essentially any computation, is an extremely challenging technical
>> problem. We're far from having solved it."
>>
>> "To crack a 2,048-bit RSA key, such as the ones that today's standards
>> require, a quantum computer will need at least a register of 2,048
>> entangled qubits. That's far from what's available today. And it seems
>> very unlikely that the current rate of progress in creating more
>> entanglement will make it possible in the next several years."
>>
>> "For now, it seems hard to justify worrying about your encryption
>> becoming vulnerable to adversaries with quantum computers. It seems
>> very likely that NIST's effort to standardize encryption algorithms
>> that are quantum-safe will be completed and widely deployed well before
>> quantum computers are a serious threat to security."
>>
>
>
> I'll be dead long before my comm's encryption scheme is broken.
>
> And I'm not going to jail.
>
>
As if government agencies are interested in pisspot geeks posting on
apas and their pisspot pgp files.

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>https://techbeacon.com/security/newest-quantum-breakthrough-encryption-
>killer
>
>Just a few bits from the article about Quantum hype.
>
>"Building a universal quantum computer, one that can perform
>essentially any computation, is an extremely challenging technical
>problem. We're far from having solved it."
>
>"To crack a 2,048-bit RSA key, such as the ones that today's standards
>require, a quantum computer will need at least a register of 2,048
>entangled qubits. That's far from what's available today. And it seems
>very unlikely that the current rate of progress in creating more
>entanglement will make it possible in the next several years."
>
>"For now, it seems hard to justify worrying about your encryption
>becoming vulnerable to adversaries with quantum computers. It seems
>very likely that NIST's effort to standardize encryption algorithms
>that are quantum-safe will be completed and widely deployed well before
>quantum computers are a serious threat to security."

Let's use RSA-4096 with Mixmaster and nyms and wait for the Chinese
to be the first winners of an RSA-2048 challenge. In case that ever
happens we still have plenty of time to react accordingly (or grow
old and die). I'm still doubtful about the security of NSA promoted
EC cryptography.