6 ms·

I'm convinced that all the quantum talk is the NSA propaganda to convince us to drop RSA and move to some secure post quantum algorithm that they can easily bre

by LtWorf 8d ago

I'm convinced that all the quantum talk is the NSA propaganda to convince us to drop RSA and move to some secure post quantum algorithm that they can easily break.

mitxela 7d ago
The NSA did indeed try that, and some federal honeypots adopted quantum-only crypto, but everyone else is using hybrid - you need to break both sides.
- LtWorf 7d ago
  Unless the implementation is flawed…
  - mitxela 6d ago
    Anything is a honeypot if the implementation is flawed. Unfalsifiable, zero entropy.
aleph_minus_one 5d ago
> I'm convinced that all the quantum talk is the NSA propaganda to convince us to drop RSA and move to some secure post quantum algorithm that they can easily break. It is rather consensus that by now, - too many potential weaknesses for RSA are known (in particular in how it is used in standardized cryptosystems [1]), - it is a bad idea if too many "free parameters" of the cryptosystem are decided by the practical implementation (in RSA: the decision which primes to use to generate the key pair) instead of these parameters being part of the standard Thus the advice to drop RSA is in my opinion sound. But otherwise: many people indeed have the suspicion that the panic that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer might get developed in the next year is indeed used to push novel "post quantum algorithms" which - have not been analyzed as thoroughly as older algorithms, and thus might contain weaknesses, - were covertly developed by some three letter agency, and contain backdoors. In other words: your suspicion might not be unfounded - this just does not imply that RSA does not have its risks and should thus arguably indeed be abandoned. --- [1] Just to give one example: in the past, RSA was often used together with the padding scheme PKCS#1 v1.5, see [2] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PKCS_1&oldid=1342076926#Schemes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PKCS_1&oldid=1342...

by LtWorf 8d ago

I'm convinced that all the quantum talk is the NSA propaganda to convince us to drop RSA and move to some secure post quantum algorithm that they can easily break.

mitxela 7d ago

The NSA did indeed try that, and some federal honeypots adopted quantum-only crypto, but everyone else is using hybrid - you need to break both sides.

LtWorf 7d ago
Unless the implementation is flawed…
- mitxela 6d ago
  Anything is a honeypot if the implementation is flawed. Unfalsifiable, zero entropy.

aleph_minus_one 5d ago

> I'm convinced that all the quantum talk is the NSA propaganda to convince us to drop RSA and move to some secure post quantum algorithm that they can easily break. It is rather consensus that by now, - too many potential weaknesses for RSA are known (in particular in how it is used in standardized cryptosystems [1]), - it is a bad idea if too many "free parameters" of the cryptosystem are decided by the practical implementation (in RSA: the decision which primes to use to generate the key pair) instead of these parameters being part of the standard Thus the advice to drop RSA is in my opinion sound. But otherwise: many people indeed have the suspicion that the panic that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer might get developed in the next year is indeed used to push novel "post quantum algorithms" which - have not been analyzed as thoroughly as older algorithms, and thus might contain weaknesses, - were covertly developed by some three letter agency, and contain backdoors. In other words: your suspicion might not be unfounded - this just does not imply that RSA does not have its risks and should thus arguably indeed be abandoned. --- [1] Just to give one example: in the past, RSA was often used together with the padding scheme PKCS#1 v1.5, see [2] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PKCS_1&oldid=1342076926#Schemes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PKCS_1&oldid=1342...