c1own

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by c1own 7y ago

   Sorry for the late reply. 1. This is actually good news. It provides deniability. You can, for instance, do something bad and then claim that the owner did it. 2. People really shouldn't reuse passwords, but I see your point.
2. 2.▲
   by c1own 7y ago

   We have Neven's law: https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-nevens-law-describe-quan... which states that quantum computers are getting doubly-exponentially better relative to classical computers. First, they are expone
3. 3.▲
   by c1own 7y ago

   arXiv:1805.10478 (and most non-Shor records on the wiki page) are hacks. They essentially reduce factoring to SAT, pick numbers so that the SAT instance is easy, and then solve that SAT instance. Which is a bad non-scalable way to factor nu
4. 4.▲
   by c1own 7y ago

   So... my understanding---please correct me if I'm wrong---is that the current practice is to send the password in plaintext to the server over a TLS connection. While this might not be the coolest way to do this (there might be somethi
5. 5.▲
   by c1own 7y ago

   Nothing can be "proven" to be quantum resistant. Even if we can show a tight reduction to LWE, and we believe that LWE is efficiently solvable (let's say LWE is not in BQP), it is still possible that the cryptosystem at the
6. 6.▲
   by c1own 7y ago

   You're wrong. https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-tls-post-quantum-experiment/