Heffalump Hackerz - Woozle Wizards - NIST Quantum Cryptography

Enjoy some humor regarding ‘quantum hysteria’ and ‘quantum scaremongering’.

Quick expert critique of quantum computers and quantum cryptography:
On the Heffalump Threat (short single-page essay)
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/heffalump_crypto.pdf

Short 3-minute video (aptly portrays quantum hysteria)
https://youtu.be/CLnADKgurvc

#NIST #cryptography #cryptology #encryption #heffalump #woozle #quantumcomputers #quantumcryptography #quantum #bigtech

@cryptography@lemmy.ml

  • firefly@neon.nightbulb.netOP
    11·
    9 months ago

    It was heartening to see someone with bona fides crack a smile instead of the perfunctory, furrowed-brow doom and gloom I see hanging over the Puzzle Palace upon Mount Gawks.

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      His peers overwhelmingly disagree with him.

      And even if there aren’t CRQCs in our lifetime, the transition to hybrid PQC could end up being worthwhile anyway if there turn out to be some non-quantum advances against some of the classical primitives we’re relying on today.

      Btw, you should change your post titles here and in the crosspost that you made of this in programmerhumor: what Gutmann is critiquing has nothing to do with quantum cryptography but rather post-quantum cryptography. (Most experts agree that the former is not particularly interesting today.)

      • firefly@neon.nightbulb.netOP
        12·
        8 months ago

        Gutmann is critiquing the fact that quantum computers don’t exist. They are as real as heffalumps.

        Since quantum computers are mythical heffalumps and don’t exist, this is all a bunch of fantasy twaddle and has zero scientific merit. Whether or not his peers disagree with him is a matter of religious faith.

        Talking about quantum computers is no different than discussing heffalumps and woozles.

        The fundamental theory behind quantum computation is nonsense. There is no such thing as a “simultaneous multi-state” particle. It’s nonsense. I don’t need to debunk it. The priests promoting it need to prove it, which they can’t do, because their claims are pure bunk.

        “Quantum” is just a marketing term. Fables and fairy tales can be fun and enjoyable, but when people are making technical decisions based on fables and fairy tales, then being toxic toward critics, we have a potentially violent and dangerous religious fantaticism, not a science.

        • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMEnglish
          2·
          8 months ago

          Gutmann is critiquing the fact that quantum computers don’t exist.

          No, he is critiquing the fact that, despite a CRQC (cryptographically relevant quantum computer, eg, one large enough to attack currently-deployed cryptographic key sizes) having not been publicly claimed and probably not existing yet, people are spending a lot of effort designing and deploying new post-quantum cryptographic primitives based on the assumption that one probably will exist eventually and possibly soon.

          If you think quantum computers don’t exist at all, what do you think the numerous customers of the companies listed here (who have been selling them for a while now) have been buying?

          There is a relatively broad scientific consensus that a CRQC is likely to be achieved eventually. The belief that it must be impossible because it hasn’t been demonstrated yet is the baseless position.

          Also, I suspect you’re not understanding the difference between quantum cryptography and post-quantum cryptography; they really have nothing to do with each other at all. Your post titles still say “quantum cryptography” which is a thing that Gutmann’s essay is not referring to in the slightest (and is a thing which doesn’t involve large quantum computers).