101
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
101 points (94.7% liked)
Privacy
32130 readers
1126 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is way more of a self-promo blog post than an article, but it's also along the lines of Signal or Apple announcing their own successes in cryptography.
BTW, this was my favorite part of the post
They're not wrong, either.
I also appreciate their clarification that post-quantum encryption is a guess, not a sure thing. Actually, they're much more blunt than that:
Good on them for saying that.
But then on expounding with minimal jargon... At least, as far as explaining cryptography can be done that way.
A "remedy against the illness that nobody has" is a good analogy, but it is important to note that it's an illness which there is a consensus we are likely to eventually have and a remedy that there is good reason to believe will be effective.
It isn't a certainty that there will ever be a cryptographically relevant post-quantum computer, and it also isn't a certainty that any of the post-quantum algorithms (as with most classical cryptography) which exist today won't turn out to be breakable even by yesterday's computers. The latter point is why it's best to deploy post-quantum cryptography in a hybrid construction such that the system remains secure even if one of the primitives turns out to be breakable.
That said, I think it is totally wrong to call PQC snake oil because that term in the context of cryptography specifically means that a system is making dishonest claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil_(cryptography)
I didn't post the part after the "snake oil" quote because my post was getting a bit long but yeah, they basically agree with you. I also get mild ESL vibes (the phrasing on the title is a little off, and I believe a couple of the developers are Russian-born) so I don't think they were trying to be too inaccurate.
yes, I realize :)
I should've made clear in my comment that, aside from a bit of imperfect English and incorrect use of the term snake oil, I think this is an excellent blog post.
Thanks for highlighting that part of history.
The guy literally printed the algorithm in a book to show that the first amendment protects encryption math. Luckily the justices at the time were definitely pro first amendment. Unlucky that they used first amendment to justify citizens United
I thought that was Phil Zimmerman with PGP.
That's djb?
Whoa. I never knew what he looked like.