[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / arepa / cafechan / leftpol / magali / sw / vg / vichan ][Options][ watchlist ]

/tech/ - Technology

You can now write text to your AI-generated image at https://aiproto.com It is currently free to use for Proto members.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Select/drop/paste files here
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Expand all images

File (hide): 7187c2856b37fe9⋯.jpg (168.22 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, .jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

 No.928567>>928605 >>928619 >>928623 >>930045 >>930164 >>931497 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

/Crypto & ITSec general/

THE POST-QUANTUM ERA IS UPON US

>NIST has initiated a process to solicit, evaluate, and standardize one or more quantum-resistant public-key cryptographic algorithms.

>In recent years, there has been a substantial amount of research on quantum computers -- machines that exploit quantum mechanical phenomena to solve mathematical problems that are difficult or intractable for conventional computers. If large-scale quantum computers are ever built, they will be able to break many of the public-key cryptosystems currently in use. This would seriously compromise the confidentiality and integrity of digital communications on the Internet and elsewhere. The goal of post-quantum cryptography (also called quantum-resistant cryptography) is to develop cryptographic systems that are secure against both quantum and classical computers, and can interoperate with existing communications protocols and networks.

>The question of when a large-scale quantum computer will be built is a complicated one. While in the past it was less clear that large quantum computers are a physical possibility, many scientists now believe it to be merely a significant engineering challenge. Some engineers even predict that within the next twenty or so years sufficiently large quantum computers will be built to break essentially all public key schemes currently in use. Historically, it has taken almost two decades to deploy our modern public key cryptography infrastructure. Therefore, regardless of whether we can estimate the exact time of the arrival of the quantum computing era, we must begin now to prepare our information security systems to be able to resist quantum computing.

<http://archive.is/TcxrJ

>We know from the Snowden documents that the NSA is conducting research on both quantum computation and quantum cryptography. The NSA is worried enough about advances in the technology to start transitioning away from algorithms that are vulnerable to a quantum computer. Unlike most personal and corporate applications, the NSA routinely deals with information it wants kept secret for decades. Even so, we should all follow the NSA's lead and transition our own systems to quantum-resistant algorithms over the next decade or so -- possibly even sooner.

<http://archive.is/WAosk

Ok so if the NSA is interested, why shouldn't we be as well?

Now, for a blog-post of what keeps me up at night:

So, long story short, I'm an electronics student who likes networking and programming more than he likes hardware.

Rather than studying about opamps and the like, I picked subjects in uni pertaining to cryptography and computer networks.

However, my math is shit, and we keep being told we should under no circumstance 'roll our own' crypto.

Thing is, I feel like all the stuff I studied in the last 2 years are out the window once post-quantum becomes a thing. And in order to survive the transition wave I'd be required to learn my ass off regarding how the math for quantum computing and post-quantum crypto primitives work, or risk almost instant obsolescence.

Is this a valid concern?

Note that I'll be bumping this thread from time to time, as I'm studying this shit and will try to provide informative easy-to-digest posts about whichever pq candidate I'll be reading about.

 No.928571>>930131

NTRU is promising.


 No.928602>>928615 >>928619 >>928652

>The goal of post-quantum cryptography (also called quantum-resistant cryptography) is to develop cryptographic systems that are secure against both quantum and classical computers, and can interoperate with existing communications protocols and networks.

Isn't the only theoretically valid counter to use quantum security coprocessors linked through dedicated end-to-end analog optical networks?


 No.928605

>>928567 (OP)

>Math is shit

>Picks crypto

I think you're going to be in for a surprise. Even if you go back to studying opamps and caps and inductors, I hope your math isn't going to be too shit for second order diff eqns.


 No.928615

>>928602

Optical is shit, we should just use NTRU and other NP-hard but not BQP algorithms to do it.


 No.928619

>>928567 (OP)

>And in order to survive the transition wave I'd be required to learn my ass off regarding how the math for quantum computing and post-quantum crypto primitives work, or risk almost instant obsolescence.

Fortunately, your betters our betters are already working on pq crypto.

https://pqcrypto.org/

https://libpqcrypto.org/

NB I have an older (~2008) AMD processor. It took about 36 hours for libpqcrypto to build on my system.

>>928602

>Isn't the only theoretically valid counter to use quantum security coprocessors linked through dedicated end-to-end analog optical networks?

lol, what a bunch of fucking gobbledygook.


 No.928623>>928651 >>928652

>>928567 (OP)

>Is this a valid concern?

Yes.

A group in 2019 gained access to they actually built the thing, but you're not meant to know for (((reasons))) a quantum computer. Crypto was rektd in a big way. Eliminate what digital accounts you can before the cyber-nuke went off CY+1.


 No.928625>>930730 >>931423

>Ok so if the NSA is interested, why shouldn't we be as well?

The CIA spent many child raping years trying to develop psychic spies.

>Is this a valid concern?

As valid as being concerned with remote viewing.


 No.928651>>928652

>>928623

>CY

Stop using this shitty meme you faggot, just say 2019 or whatever year it is.


 No.928652

>>928602

>Isn't the only theoretically valid counter to use quantum security coprocessors linked through dedicated end-to-end analog optical networks?

No, there are algorithms that can't be efficiently cracked with a quantum computer. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem

>>928623

>>928651

You're both getting it wrong in CY+3


 No.930036

So is NTRU the most popular post-quantum crypto?


 No.930037

What about McEliece?


 No.930045>>930048 >>930069

>>928567 (OP)

The post quantum shit all requires public keys that are like 10 megabytes.


 No.930048>>930066 >>930069

>>930045

That shouldn't be an issue if you don't live in some third world shithole.


 No.930066>>930069

>>930048

You faggots complain if any website takes more that a megabyte of data to load and yet you want 10x that for the key exchange?


 No.930069>>930076

>>930045

>>930048

>>930066

NTRU and the likely variant of McEliece to be in use in the future do not require keys that large. McEliece with hidden Goppa codes will require keys of about 1 MiB, for example.


 No.930076>>930089 >>930166

>>930069

Ah yes thats only 500 times bigger than what we use now.


 No.930089>>930135

>>930076

Current McEliece vs future McEliece vs light NTRU


 No.930131

>>928571

Sure, but we're going to need more than one.


 No.930135>>930168 >>930940

>>930089

>He thinks keys are going to get smaller instead of bigger


 No.930164>>930165 >>930166

>>928567 (OP)

>I feel like all the stuff I studied in the last 2 years are out the window once post-quantum becomes a thing.

Not really, quantum is only an issue for asymmetric key crypto, symmetric key crypto is safe from it.

Quantum computers are really good at a narrow set of specific tasks, they aren't magical brute-forcing machines.


 No.930165>>930167 >>930175

>>930164

Even then high bit asym keys are fine. Its just the small shit that you have to worry about like all these tiny ECC keys.


 No.930166>>930175

>>930076

If key size and not security is your main concern, you can use Caesar's cipher. Knock yourself out, buddy.

>>930164

>Not really, quantum is only an issue for asymmetric key crypto,

Incorrect. Quantum cryptanalysis is not an issue for all asymmetric key cryptography. Otherwise it would be pointless to look at alternatives like NTRU. It is an issue for cryptography based on certain problems (e.g. integer factorization, discrete log), which happen to be the ones currently in common use for asymmetric key crypto.

>symmetric key crypto is safe from it.

Incorrect. Again, the devil is in the details. Look up Grover's algorithm.


 No.930167

>>930165

>Even then high bit asym keys are fine.

No.


 No.930168>>930181

>>930135

As long as it beats RSA4096 and RSA8192


 No.930175>>930181 >>930193

>>930165

>Even then high bit asym keys are fine.

No, Shor's algorithm reduces many asymmetric crypto down to polynomial time, adding bits does very little.

>>930166

>Quantum cryptanalysis is not an issue for all asymmetric key cryptography.

>Otherwise it would be pointless to look at alternatives like NTRU.

I was referring to currently used asymmetric crypto since thats what OP was concerned about. Also the 'quantum safe' really just means that there isn't a vulnerability which allows a quantum computer break it easily, I remember reading about some solutions which are easier to break on a quantum computer than a normal one but because it still takes billions of years with reasonable key sizes its considered safe against quantum attacks.


 No.930181

>>930175

See >>930168 to see what keysize is better in NTRU


 No.930187


 No.930190


 No.930193>>930197

>>930175

>No, Shor's algorithm reduces many asymmetric crypto down to polynomial time, adding bits does very little.

This statement has almost no applicability to real life. Adding bits helps a ton. What you are assuming is that quantum entanglement can be scaled to an arbitrary number of bits. All current research indicates that keeping many bits entangled stably at a low noise probability ratio is incredibly difficult and perhaps impossible at higher numbers.


 No.930195


 No.930197>>930205

>>930193

we should be pessimistic about our cryptography


 No.930205>>930221

>>930197

I agree completely. Which is why i'm going to continue using our current incredibly well tested and analyzed 2 main asym crypto families, instead of a bunch of other random shit no one uses that have a bunch of down sides.


 No.930220>>930222

so can the nsa decrypt shit like truecrypt reliably yet?


 No.930221>>930232

>>930205

I meant pessimism on the power of Quantum Computers.

Always assume your enemy has all the tech in the world.


 No.930222

>>930220

No, we are talking PGP here.


 No.930224>>930234

One-time pads will still be safe, so long as you use them properly. Best of all, it's very simple and doesn't require powerful (i.e. botnet) hardware. Any 8-bit computer will manage well enough.


 No.930232>>930551

>>930221

>I meant pessimism on the power of Quantum Computers.

Ah right so we should not be pessimistic about crypto at all and start using all these untested new crypto systems. Great idea mr retard.


 No.930234

>>930224

You have to go manually meet anyone you want to talk to. It can never work for websites or anything else only people you physically know.


 No.930551>>930675

>>930232

>so we should not be pessimistic about crypto at all

No, we should be pessimistic about BOTH Quantum Computer's power AND untested cryptosystem being part of (((NSA's))) plan.


 No.930675>>930676

>>930551

quantum computers don't even work


 No.930676>>930680

>>930675

I'd say the same if I had one.


 No.930680>>930686 >>930693

>>930676

>anything that would be useful to keep secret automatically exists

LOL


 No.930686

>>930680

What do you not understand about "pessimistic" you optimist shill?


 No.930693>>930694 >>930720

>>930680

Always assume that the NSA have the technology 20~30 years beforehand

(see RSA being discovered 1977 and declassified 20 years later)

(See also RC4 created in 1987 and disclosed to the public 27 years later)


 No.930694>>930699

>>930693

>technology

are you the same kind of person who believes in the singularity?


 No.930699

>>930694

What I believe is not relevant. The NSA having quantum computers is within my threat model.


 No.930720>>930735

>>930693

>Always assume that the NSA have the technology 20~30 years beforehand

Yeah bullshit the NSA is not some magical super tech empire. All leaks indicate that they have OUTDATED technology compared to ever major part of the tech industry.


 No.930730>>930745

>>928625

>child raping years

Are you confusing reality and TV again?


 No.930735>>930741

>>930720

Source? inb4 just google it on the wikileaks


 No.930741

>>930735

>inb4 just google it on the wikileaks

Literally wikileaks


 No.930745>>930849

>>930730

You're clueless.


 No.930849>>930961

>>930745

Funny how you can't even post a fucking source.


 No.930940

>>930135

Someone hasn't heard of ECC, key sizes are significantly smaller than RSA for the same cryptographic strength


 No.930961>>930979

>>930849

You might be too dumb for the internet.

<The operation was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967, and officially halted in 1973.[3] The program engaged in many illegal activities,[4][5][6] including the use of U.S. and Canadian citizens as its unwitting test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy.[4](p74)[7][8][9] MKUltra used numerous methods to manipulate people's mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis,[10][11] sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse (including the sexual abuse of children), and other forms of torture.[12][13]


 No.930979>>930989 >>931001

>>930961

Unrelated to PQcrypto, are you done?


 No.930987>>931151

File (hide): 6353c34075e7c24⋯.png (801.42 KB, 1440x2880, 1:2, Screenshot_20180615-204231.png) (h) (u)


 No.930989>>931011

>>930979

Fuck off CIA-Nigger.


 No.931001>>931011

>>930979

>can't even follow a simple reply chain

you have to go back


 No.931011>>931012 >>931151

>>931001

I followed back, following NSA practices and the CIA are entirely different and the MK projects have no relationship with PQ Crypto

>>930989

Not CIA, but I worked at an Intel agency while I was in the military, the NSA is why I joined and why I got out. I'm just a lowly corporate pen tester now. Though, I do wish I could have been a subject of MK Ultra because I love LSD.


 No.931012

>>931011

>I do wish I could have been a subject of MK Ultra

Think you aren't?


 No.931151

>>930987

Most Asymmetric ciphers have weak keys, prove me wrong.

>>931011

>MK projects have no relationship with PQ Crypto

Both MK projects and BQP algorithms are "government projects made to be hidden".

You know this, you are from the military.


 No.931210>>931418

I don't know too much about PQC, but I had the impression that the no-cloning theorem ensures absolute security (atleast for the communication channel)

A concise explaination would be greatly appreciated.


 No.931418

>>931210

That is quantum One-Time-Pad, NOT quantum-proof silicon computer algorithms


 No.931423

>>928625

Okay. So live life assuming you are compromised. That is what I do. All the same, crypto is fun.


 No.931426


 No.931497>>931891

>>928567 (OP)

>my math is shit,

Your on to something with that statement. As a man and competitor you understand your weakness. Now get out there and make it a strength you lazy sob. Work at it until it is a strength.


 No.931891>>931911

>>931497

Is there any good source for structured math drills on the internet? A bit of a tangent but I'm wondering.


 No.931911

>>931891

Khan Academy




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Screencap][Nerve Center][Cancer][Update] ( Scroll to new posts) ( Auto) 5
68 replies | 1 images | Page ?
[Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / arepa / cafechan / leftpol / magali / sw / vg / vichan ][ watchlist ]