this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
105 points (81.1% liked)

Technology

59627 readers
2911 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 60 points 1 month ago (28 children)

I love how it did not at all explain what they broke. It mentioned "rectangle"? Whats that? How does it have any relation to AES? Because AES is NOT vulnerable to quantum computing. Did they get the key by knowing the ciphertext and the original data?

[–] tal@lemmy.today 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

Because AES is NOT vulnerable to quantum computing.

I have not been following the quantum computing attacks on cryptography, so I'm not current here at all.

I can believe that current AES in general use cannot be broken by existing quantum computers.

But if what you're saying is that AES cannot be broken by quantum computing at all, that doesn't seem to be what various pages out there say.

https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/6712/is-aes-256-a-post-quantum-secure-cipher-or-not

Is AES-256 a post-quantum secure cipher or not?

The best known theoretical attack is Grover's quantum search algorithm. As you pointed out, this allows us to search an unsorted database of n entries in n−−√ operations. As such, AES-256 is secure for a medium-term against a quantum attack, however, AES-128 can be broken, and AES-192 isn't looking that good.

With the advances in computational power (doubling every 18 months), and the development of quantum computers, no set keysize is safe indefinitely. The use of Grover is just one of the gigantic leaps.

I would still class AES as quantum resistant, so long as the best-known attack is still some form of an exhaustive search of the keyspace.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Bump AES to a min 1024 and you buy time.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago

Technically correct. You would buy time well past the end of the universe. Advances in either quantum or conventional computers would not change this. There are theoretical limits at play.

Now, maybe you can find a way to substantially reduce the difficulty of breaking it over brute force. Cryptographers have been trying to break AES for 30 years now and haven't found one that does more than marginal improvement. But it's possible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)