Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday May 16 2017, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-the-end-of-secrecy dept.

Math is hard. Indeed, much of the modern infrastructure for secure communication depends heavily on the difficulty of elementary mathematics — of factoring, to be exact. It's easy to reduce a small number like 15 to its prime factors (3 x 5), but factoring numbers with a few hundred digits is still exceedingly difficult. For this reason, the RSA cryptosystem, an encryption scheme that derives its security from the difficulty of integer factorization, remains a popular tool for secure communication.

Research suggests, however, that a quantum computer would be able to factor a large number far more quickly than the best available methods today. If researchers could build a quantum computer that could outperform classical supercomputers, the thinking goes, cryptographers could use a particular algorithm called Shor's algorithm to render the RSA cryptosystem unsalvageable. The deadline to avert this may arrive sooner than we think: Google recently claimed that its quantum computers will be able to perform a calculation that's beyond the reach of any classical computer by the end of the year. In light of this, cryptographers are scrambling to find a new quantum-proof security standard.

Yet perhaps RSA isn't in as much trouble as researchers have assumed. A few weeks ago, a paper surfaced on the Cryptology ePrint Archive that asked: "Is it actually true that quantum computers will kill RSA?" The authors note that even though a quantum computer running Shor's algorithm would be faster than a classical computer, the RSA algorithm is faster than both. And the larger the RSA "key" — the number that must be factored — the greater the speed difference.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:53PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:53PM (#510782)

    It's why I sell flying-car insurance.

  • (Score: 2) by J053 on Wednesday May 17 2017, @12:05AM (1 child)

    by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Wednesday May 17 2017, @12:05AM (#510838) Homepage
    My one-time retirement plan was, seriously, to sell meteorite insurance. Then I found out you need to post a huge bond to operate legally as an insurance company. So much for that idea.