Re: What's the state of the art in factorization?

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:58:25PM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: > The DNS root may be qualified as a "high valued" zone, but I made the > effort to put in writing some elements of a "risk analysis" (I have an > aversion for this notion as I build *IT*controls* and the consultants are > hired to

RE: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

>At 11:31 AM -0400 4/20/10, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >>I wonder why it is that, in spite of almost universal disinterest in the >>security community, quantum key distribution continues to be a subject >>of active technological development. Paul Hoffman wrote: >You hit it: "almost". As long as a few

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Via /., I saw the following article on ever higher speed QKD: > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/19/super-secure-data-encryption-gets-faster.aspx > > Very interesting physics, but quite useless in the real world. Useless no

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

silky writes: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> >> Via /., I saw the following article on ever higher speed QKD: >> >> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/19/super-secure-data-encryption-gets-faster.aspx >> >> Very interesting physics, but quite useless in the

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

First of all, I'm sure you know more about this than me, but allow me to reply ... On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Useless now maybe, but it's preparing for a world where RSA is broken > > (i.e. quantum computers) and it doesn't require quantum computers; so > > it'

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:48:09PM +1000, silky wrote: > > Useless now maybe, but it's preparing for a world where RSA is broken > (i.e. quantum computers) and it doesn't require quantum computers; so > it's quite practical, in that sense. Numerous PK schemes based on coding theory or the shortes

The EC patent issues discussion

At 9:40 PM -0400 4/20/10, Victor Duchovni wrote: >EC definitely has practical merit. Unfortunately the patent issues around >protocols using EC public keys are murky. This is starting to turn around. More vendors are questioning the murk. Please see

Re: What's the state of the art in factorization?

On 21-04-2010 02:40, Victor Duchovni wrote: > EC definitely has practical merit. Unfortunately the patent issues around > protocols using EC public keys are murky. > > Neither RSA nor EC come with complexity proofs. > While EC (by that I assume you mean ECDSA) does not have a formal security pr

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

silky writes: > First of all, I'm sure you know more about this than me, but allow me > to reply ... > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> > Useless now maybe, but it's preparing for a world where RSA is broken >> > (i.e. quantum computers) and it doesn't require quant

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: [...] >>> Second, you can't use QKD on a computer network. It is strictly point to >>> point. Want 200 nodes to talk to each other? Then you need 40,000 >>> fibers, without repeaters, in between the nodes, each with a $10,000 or >>> more

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

silky writes: Second, you can't use QKD on a computer network. It is strictly point to point. Want 200 nodes to talk to each other? Then you need 40,000 fibers, without repeaters, in between the nodes, each with a $10,000 or more piece of equipment at each of the endpoints, fo

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > No one is doing that, though. People are working on things like faster > > > bit rates, as though the basic reasons the whole thing is useless were > > > solved. > > > > I don't think you can legitimately speak for the entire communit

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

Let me note that Mr. Leiseboer is the CTO of a company that makes QKD equipment. "John Leiseboer" writes: > I too once worked exclusively in the world of classical cryptography and > was sceptical of QKD. I now work in both worlds - classical cryptography > and QKD. I now know that QKD can be a

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

silky writes: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> > > No one is doing that, though. People are working on things like faster >> > > bit rates, as though the basic reasons the whole thing is useless were >> > > solved. >> > >> > I don't think you can legitimately speak