POST-QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY

So is NTRU the most popular post-quantum crypto?

What about McEliece?

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

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

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?

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.

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

Current McEliece vs future McEliece vs light NTRU

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

...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

No.

As long as it beats RSA4096 and RSA8192

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

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.

See to see what keysize is better in NTRU

LOOK AT THIS
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederreiter_cryptosystem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GGH_encryption_scheme
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GGH_signature_scheme
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUAD_(cipher)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography#Comparison

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.

This can be used for Encryption (not explicit)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_learning_with_errors_key_exchange
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersingular_isogeny_key_exchange

we should be pessimistic about our cryptography

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.

so can the nsa decrypt shit like truecrypt reliably yet?

I meant pessimism on the power of Quantum Computers.
Always assume your enemy has all the tech in the world.

No, we are talking PGP here.

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.

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.

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, we should be pessimistic about BOTH Quantum Computer's power AND untested cryptosystem being part of (((NSA's))) plan.

quantum computers don't even work

I'd say the same if I had one.

LOL

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

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)

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

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

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.

Are you confusing reality and TV again?

Source? inb4 just google it on the wikileaks

Literally wikileaks

You're clueless.

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

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

You might be too dumb for the internet.

Unrelated to PQcrypto, are you done?

Attached: Screenshot_20180615-204231.png (1440x2880, 801.42K)

Fuck off CIA-Nigger.

you have to go back

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

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.

Think you aren't?

Most Asymmetric ciphers have weak keys, prove me wrong.

Both MK projects and BQP algorithms are "government projects made to be hidden".
You know this, you are from the military.

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.

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

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

ntruprime.cr.yp.to/
Look at this kike

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.

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

Khan Academy