this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
47 points (91.2% liked)
Technology
87598 readers
4165 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well they’re in luck; the US already has working quantum computers, and quantum-resistant encryption.
Can you elaborate? Just curious what you are referring to.
I don't know what he's talking about, but maybe he's saying that the US already has quantum computers capable of breaking modern cryptography, and that it's time to move to Post Quantum Cryptography (PGC). The process is pretty far along:
Both sites mention "harvest now, decrypt later." That's an attack where someone could scoop up all the encrypted traffic/files/whatever, and just store it until quantum computers are effective at breaking it. Because of the nature of the topic nobody who knows for sure is going to say, but it's not going to be cheap to replace all the crypto out there with PGC so there's a reason to think there's a need even if nobody will confirm anything. I personally think just the possibility of the attack is enough reason to move if the algorithms are already in place. If you've got encrypted data and you expected it to stay unreadable for hundreds of years, then there's reason to think that's not achievable right now.
https://nist.pqcrypto.org/foia/20250114/djb%20pqc%20paper.pdf
Is any of these algorithms somewhat battle tested? Otherwise there is the risk of adopting an insecure algorithm. So I guess there is some risk both ways.
They've been beaten on enough that industry is moving forward. The advantage of knowing and being able to prove that the algorithms are insecure would be incalcuable, so groups who want to be able to break into systems aren't going to volunteer the information. It's to the benefit of everyone else that the algorithms be secure. The third section of that paper I linked does a pretty good job explaining the why and why now.
tl;dr: Smart people have dug into it, and we know what we're going to know for now.