Opinions on the threat Post-Quantum Computing poses encryption

[Avoca]

I have been researching the current status of Quantum Computing with a view to maybe entering some post-graduate certification course, particularly as it relates to encryption and data security.

I have come to a fairly sceptical conclusion, both from a hardware development point of view and, probably even more sceptical, view of the algorithm development field.

Please, let me say at the outset, I have no doubt PQ Computing CAN have a significant impact on decryption, but there is, in my mind, still huge gap between what we currently have and what, predicted, requirements would be.

Firstly, for example, IBM currently has ~1150 Physical Qubits. That’s, theoretically, ~20 Logical Quibits.

The, suggested, amount of Logical Qubit’s required to factorise PGP encryption is ~4,000,000. That’s ~200,000,000 Physical Qubits. Not impossible if you can find a suitable substrate to assemble said Physical Qubits on, which they haven’t, at least not under reliable, sensible, economically viable conditions.

Secondly, though Shor’s Algorithm ‘suggests’ the ability to more efficiently factorise PGP level encryption, it is still more of an Oracle Algorithm than fully developed, and research in this area is stunted, to say the least.

With this in mind, I’m inclined to think, USEFUL Quantum Computer’s are eons away, if at all possible, and the current ‘hype’ is purely Wall Street opportunism.

[jonah (Jonah Aragon)]

If you think that the threat is theoretically possible then I am not sure what you are asking, because that is also what experts would agree on right now.

Nobody is suggesting that quantum computers can usefully break encryption today, that is not the reason post-quantum cryptography is being introduced. The reason we need PQ crypto is to protect the communications of today from computers 20-40 years from now. That’s a span of time that is still well within the lifespans of very many people, so even talking decades out this could have a real-world impact on people around today.

[Avoca]

Valid points, no doubt. And I fully support that objective.

But, I feel, it must be difficult to confidently future-proof for technology, materials or society that doesn’t yet exist.

I’m not criticising current PQ efforts by folk that NEED to secure their products/data. More power and success to them. Heck, I’m doing the same thing.

I’m simply trying get a ‘feeling’ for any sort of ‘consensus’ from the broadest possible audience on the current state of play, so to speak.

I’m not saying “I’m right…”, just “I think…”.