Most active commenters
  • cyberpunk(6)
  • bawolff(4)

←back to thread

429 points AbhishekParmar | 13 comments | | HN request time: 1.232s | source | bottom
Show context
Imnimo ◴[] No.45670761[source]
As with any quantum computing news, I will wait for Scott Aaronson to tell me what to think about this.
replies(6): >>45670868 #>>45670978 #>>45671067 #>>45671079 #>>45671833 #>>45672034 #
lisper ◴[] No.45670978[source]
Why wait? Just go read the paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09526-6

In the last sentence of the abstract you will find:

"These results ... indicate a viable path to practical quantum advantage."

And in the conclusions:

"Although the random circuits used in the dynamic learning demonstration remain a toy model for Hamiltonians that are of practical relevance, the scheme is readily applicable to real physical systems."

So the press release is a little over-hyped. But this is real progress nonetheless (assuming the results actually hold up).

[UPDATE] It should be noted that this is still a very long way away from cracking RSA. That requires quantum error correction, which this work doesn't address at all. This work is in a completely different regime of quantum computing, looking for practical applications that use a quantum computer to simulate a physical quantum system faster than a classical computer can. The hardware improvements that produced progress in this area might be applicable to QEC some day, this is not direct progress towards implementing Shor's algorithm at all. So your crypto is still safe for the time being.

replies(4): >>45671003 #>>45671037 #>>45671611 #>>45671618 #
ransom1538 ◴[] No.45671003[source]
SO... BTC goes to zero?
replies(5): >>45671041 #>>45671043 #>>45671120 #>>45671360 #>>45672639 #
deliriumchn ◴[] No.45671041[source]
no, not really, PQC is already being discussed in pretty much every relevant crypto thing for couple years alearady and there are multiple PQC algos ready to protect important data in banking etc as well
replies(1): >>45671599 #
1. cyberpunk ◴[] No.45671599[source]
I don’t really understand the threat to banking. Let’s say you crack the encryption key used in my bank between a java payment processing system and a database server. You can’t just inject transactions or something. Is the threat that internal network traffic could be read? Transactions all go to clearing houses anyway. Is it to protect browser->webapp style banking? those all use ec by now anyway, and even if they don’t how do you mitm this traffic?

Where is the exact threat?

replies(3): >>45671825 #>>45671955 #>>45672073 #
2. conradev ◴[] No.45671825[source]
The big threat is passively breaking TLS, so it’s browser traffic. Or, any internet traffic?
replies(1): >>45671954 #
3. cyberpunk ◴[] No.45671954[source]
Okay, but breaking that TLS (device->bank) would allow you to intercept the session keys and then decrypt the conversation. Alright, so now you can read I logged in and booked a transaction to my landlord or whatever. What else can you do? OTP/2FA code prevents you from re-using my credentials. Has it been demonstrated at all that someone who intercepts a session key is able to somehow inject into a conversation? It seems highly unlikely to me with TCP over the internet.

So we are all in a collective flap that someone can see my bank transactions? These are pretty much public knowledge to governments/central banks/clearing houses anyway -- doesn't seem like all that big a deal to me.

(I work on payment processing systems for a large bank)

replies(1): >>45672045 #
4. bawolff ◴[] No.45671955[source]
> those all use ec by now anyway

As far as i am aware, eliptic curve is also vulnerable to quantum attacks.

The threat is generally both passive eavesdropping to decrypt later and also active MITM attacks. Both of course require the attacker to be in a position to eavesdrop.

> Let’s say you crack the encryption key used in my bank between a java payment processing system and a database server.

Well if you are sitting in the right place on the network then you can.

> how do you mitm this traffic?

Depends on the scenario. If you are government or ISP then its easy. Otherwise it might be difficult. Typical real life scenarios are when the victim is using wifi and the attacker is in the physical vicinity.

Like all things crypto, it always depends on context. What information are you trying to protect and who are you trying to protect.

All that said, people are already experimenting with PQC so it might mostly be moot by the time a quantum computer comes around. On the other hand people are still using md5 so legacy will bite.

replies(1): >>45672086 #
5. bawolff ◴[] No.45672045{3}[source]
> Has it been demonstrated at all that someone who intercepts a session key is able to somehow inject into a conversation? It seems highly unlikely to me with TCP over the internet.

if you can read the TLS session in general, you can capture the TLS session ticket and then use that to make a subsequent connection. This is easier as you dont have to be injecting packets live or make inconvinent packets disappear.

replies(1): >>45672194 #
6. chuckadams ◴[] No.45672073[source]
Flooding the system with forged messages that overwhelm the clearinghouse having to verify them sounds like a good way to bring down a banking system.
replies(1): >>45672246 #
7. cyberpunk ◴[] No.45672086[source]
> Well if you are sitting in the right place on the network then you can.

Not really. This would be if not instantly then when a batch goes for clearing or reconciliation, be caught -- and an investigation would be immediately started.

There are safeguards against this kind of thing that can't be really defeated by breaking some crypto. We have to protect against malicious employees etc also.

One can not simply insert bank transactions like this. They are really extremely complicated flows here.

replies(1): >>45676894 #
8. cyberpunk ◴[] No.45672194{4}[source]
It seems like detecting a re-use like this should be reasonably easy, it would not look like normal traffic and we could flag this to our surveillance systems for additional checks on these transactions. In a post quantum world, this seems like something that would be everywhere anyway (and presumably, we would be using some other algo by then too).

Somehow, I'm not all that scared. Perhaps I'm naive.. :}

replies(1): >>45676928 #
9. cyberpunk ◴[] No.45672246[source]
Sure, if a bank gets compromised you could in theory DOS a clearing house, but I'd be completely amazed if it succeeded. Those kind of anomalous spikes would be detected quickly. Not even imagining that each bank probably has dedicated instances inside each clearing house.

These are fairly robust systems. You'd likely have a much better impact dossing the banks.

replies(1): >>45672273 #
10. chuckadams ◴[] No.45672273{3}[source]
Yah, I suspect the banks pay a handsome sum to smarter people than you and me, and they've gamed this out already.
replies(1): >>45672304 #
11. cyberpunk ◴[] No.45672304{4}[source]
I build such systems ;)
12. bawolff ◴[] No.45676894{3}[source]
I meant on a technical level you could insert the data into the network. Obviously if the system as a whole does not depend on TLS for security, then no amount of breaking TLS will impact it
13. bawolff ◴[] No.45676928{5}[source]
> It seems like detecting a re-use like this should be reasonably easy, it would not look like normal traffic

I don't see why it wouldn't look like normal traffic.

> Somehow, I'm not all that scared. Perhaps I'm naive.. :}

We're talking about an attack that probably won't be practical for another 20 years , which already has counter measures that are in testing right now. Almost nobody should be worried about it.