U.K. Abandons, for Now, Legislation That Would Have Banned End-to-End Encryption

Re:U.K. Abandons, for Now, Legislation That Would Have Banne... by phoe-krk on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @02:25PM (#37409075)

TIL! Which ones? I've only seen ones that were proclaimed to be secure, only to be broken in some simple/clever ways not much later.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.K. Abandons, for Now, Legislation That Would Have Banne... by tux3 on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @02:42PM (#37409262)

There were a lot of pqcrypto candidates, and several of them were indeed thoroughly broken, prey to the fearsome cryptanalyst's laptop left running over a weekend

NIST standardized Kyber and Dilithium, and for now at least, they seem to be holding up. I'd still want to do hybrid (ECC+PQ) asymmetric crypto for the time being, but we're (slowly) starting to gain a modicum of confidence in the new standards, enough for deployment

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.K. Abandons, for Now, Legislation That Would Have Banne... by mrguyorama on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @02:29PM (#37409114)

You can basically just make the numbers bigger. Quantum computers aren't magic, and are still limited in what and how they can process within normal informational theories.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.K. Abandons, for Now, Legislation That Would Have Banne... by sweis on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @03:17PM (#37409806)

NIST post-quantum standards resulted from a 8+ year process and public competition: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography

[ Parent | on HN ]