Re:What the CIA WikiLeaks Dump Tells Us: Encryption Works
by jacquesm on Saturday March 11, 2017 @09:25AM
(#13845488)
A signature is a trap-door, encryption is reversible. So they are two entirely different things, you can't use a signature hash for encryption.
Re:What the CIA WikiLeaks Dump Tells Us: Encryption Works
by wyager on Saturday March 11, 2017 @04:07PM
(#13847268)
You are correct, but we're talking about asymmetric key crypto in general, not just encryption. Presumably the GP is referring to quantum-resistant hash-based signature schemes such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_signature_scheme
Re:What the CIA WikiLeaks Dump Tells Us: Encryption Works
by snakeanus on Saturday March 11, 2017 @09:34AM
(#13845515)
I am not claiming that you can though.
Re:What the CIA WikiLeaks Dump Tells Us: Encryption Works
by jacquesm on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:01AM
(#13845610)
Then you probably meant to start a new thread. The one you are replying to is about encryption exclusively.
Re:What the CIA WikiLeaks Dump Tells Us: Encryption Works
by snakeanus on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:34AM
(#13845720)
Nope, the poster I replied to talked about asymmetric crypto in general, which includes signatures.
It is also extremely annoying that programs like gpg do not support the generation of large RSA keysizes such as 15360 bits which would require many more qbits in order to break (and since RSA 4096 and 2048 are much more commonly used, they might not even build a quantum computer capable of breaking them or they might create a much smaller amount of them).