This one is significant

[s2art]

Quantum computing on the way. What happens when all the current encryption mechanisms are easily crackable?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17736-codebr...

[silver.fox.2008]

Can quantum computing be used to break quantum encryption?

[s2art]

silver.fox.2008 said:

Can quantum computing be used to break quantum encryption?

No. But implementing quantum encryption for all the uses we currently use standard encryption for is a rather big deal.

[silver.fox.2008]

s2art said:

silver.fox.2008 said:

Can quantum computing be used to break quantum encryption?

No. But implementing quantum encryption for all the uses we currently use standard encryption for is a rather big deal.

I agree, for now.

At the pace tech moves i wouldn't be surprised how quickly encryption is adapted.

[s2art]

silver.fox.2008 said:

s2art said:

silver.fox.2008 said:

Can quantum computing be used to break quantum encryption?

No. But implementing quantum encryption for all the uses we currently use standard encryption for is a rather big deal.

I agree, for now.

At the pace tech moves i wouldn't be surprised how quickly encryption is adapted.

Its the infrastructure (fibre optics all the way) that is the big deal. Not to mention that anything stored encrypted on disk will become vulnerable (Q.E. doesnt apply there)

[grumbledoak]

I may have misread, or New Scientist might be talking crap, but as far as I can tell they only did the prime number multiplication part? That is the easy bit. I didn't see anything to suggest that they factored 15 into 3 and 5...

[s2art]

grumbledoak said:

I may have misread, or New Scientist might be talking crap, but as far as I can tell they only did the prime number multiplication part? That is the easy bit. I didn't see anything to suggest that they factored 15 into 3 and 5...

It was a proof-of-principle to show Shor's algorithm can be implemented.

[grumbledoak]

s2art said:

It was a proof-of-principle to show Shor's algorithm can be implemented.

Is it?

With current computational methods we can multiply three by five and get sixteen. That doesn't prove we can do the reverse in a bearable timescale. It might just be NS's article, but I'm not sure they have demonstrated much beyond a light-based computer 'chip' doing 'something'.

[s2art]

grumbledoak said:

s2art said:

It was a proof-of-principle to show Shor's algorithm can be implemented.

Is it?

With current computational methods we can multiply three by five and get sixteen. That doesn't prove we can do the reverse in a bearable timescale. It might just be NS's article, but I'm not sure they have demonstrated much beyond a light-based computer 'chip' doing 'something'.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5945/1221

[grumbledoak]

s2art said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325...

Sounds more promising. But, as ever, pay to view. Sadly I'm neither a Uni or a 'charidee'...

[oldsoak]

Whatever is built by man can be broken or circumvented by man...nothing is ever gonna be 100% secure or uncrackable.

[s2art]

oldsoak said:

Whatever is built by man can be broken or circumvented by man...nothing is ever gonna be 100% secure or uncrackable.

Wrong.

[grumbledoak]

s2art said:

Wrong.

I think 'oldsoak' has misused the word 'or', at the very least.

A 'One Time Pad' is completely uncrackable.
Any information is 'secure' once you've dissovled the documents in acid and thrown the author into a volcano.

[s2art]

grumbledoak said:

s2art said:

Wrong.

I think 'oldsoak' has misused the word 'or', at the very least.

A 'One Time Pad' is completely uncrackable.
Any information is 'secure' once you've dissovled the documents in acid and thrown the author into a volcano.

lol! Sure. Not to mention quantum encryption is uncrackable even in principle.