On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 12:29:41PM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: > > On 2019-10-26 12:03, Frank Beuth wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 02:53:42PM +0800, Jyri Hovila [Turvamies.fi] > > wrote: > > > Maybe OpenBSD could profile itself as *the* OS with all crypto > > > related stuff is handled using post-quantum cryptography? > > > > I don't think OpenBSD wants to "profile itself" as anything. > > > > Are post-quantum algorithms well reviewed and stable enough to be worth > > using as defaults for OpenBSD full disk encryption, OpenSSH, > > LibreSSL...? > > > > Do you or anyone else have the expertise to implement them? > > > In no way I'm an authority on the subject. I have been interested by this > though and have bought two books on post-quantum cryptography (one is not > delivered yet, it will be published in November). The one book written by > DJB has a table on page 16 which I'd like to share: > > RSA->broken, Diffie Helman->broken, Elliptic curve->broken, > Buchman-Williams->broken,Algebraic Homomorphic->broken by quantum systems > > This leaves McEliece public key, NTRU public key and Lattice based public > keys as unbroken by quantum systems. > > All in theory as this book was written in 2010. I'm opening my eyes though > to the quantum threat. > > The unbroken systems may have behaviour much different from RSA (as an > example) and the OpenSSH code would perhaps need huge refactoring in > protocol exchange than before. > > Maybe someone should be sponsored to do the grunt work with some of the > donation money that OpenBSD is showered with, or maybe someone will do it > for free. Good luck to all the programmers involved! One day it will have > to be done, let's hope before the break-ins to important hosts. >
I see a whole lot of assumptions here. First, mathmeticians have recently solved with "ordinary" computers one of the "only a quantum computer" can solve proposed computations. Perhaps they will keep solving such problems as more mathematical theories develop. The ideas behind quantum computing itself may serve as inspirations. Second, that we will actually be able to get an actual functioning quantum computer that works. So far the need to deal with errors is a major obstacle. Even this may prove to be an unsolvable downfall. We keep discovering new physics. Maybe this is a dead end idea? Too much vinegar and not enough honey to catch the flies? Third, that such a computer proves far to expensive to actually build at a usable level. A 300 trillion dollar unit. Who would fork over that much? Fourth, that perhaps we may find ways to vastly empower regular computers far beyond today's level. A quantum computer itself may become seen as a waste of time and never leave the laboratories. Science, math, physics, etc. are an always moving target. I have a hunch that things are not going to end up where we are guessing they will. We have "phasers", we don't have transporters. We do have the Internet. Nobody saw that one coming except as a vague sorta weak idea. For now, no hardware = no software = no developers. Tomorrow, who knows? Could be pretty cool. Today, genuine work needs to get done. Please help. Best regards, Chris Bennett
