Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Last year, my position was that we still had time to design PQ authentication mechanisms.

Last year, my position was that we still had time to design PQ authentication mechanisms.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
7 Posts 7 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • filippo@abyssdomain.expertF This user is from outside of this forum
    filippo@abyssdomain.expertF This user is from outside of this forum
    filippo@abyssdomain.expert
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Last year, my position was that we still had time to design PQ authentication mechanisms.

    Now, based on the pace of progress and on statements like Google's, I believe:

    1. we need to finish rolling out PQ key exchange yesterday
    2. we need to start rolling out PQ auth now
    3. it's too late to ship any new non-PQ design or system

    https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-security/cryptography-migration-timeline/

    freddy@social.security.plumbingF ikke@ipv6.socialI ciantic@twit.socialC flux@mastodon.unwi.reF 4 Replies Last reply
    1
    0
    • filippo@abyssdomain.expertF filippo@abyssdomain.expert

      Last year, my position was that we still had time to design PQ authentication mechanisms.

      Now, based on the pace of progress and on statements like Google's, I believe:

      1. we need to finish rolling out PQ key exchange yesterday
      2. we need to start rolling out PQ auth now
      3. it's too late to ship any new non-PQ design or system

      https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-security/cryptography-migration-timeline/

      freddy@social.security.plumbingF This user is from outside of this forum
      freddy@social.security.plumbingF This user is from outside of this forum
      freddy@social.security.plumbing
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      @filippo I like their aggressive timeline, but I'm not sure there's any specific argument or reason that explains why it should be expedited. Am I missing something?

      R 4raylee@mathstodon.xyz4 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • filippo@abyssdomain.expertF filippo@abyssdomain.expert

        Last year, my position was that we still had time to design PQ authentication mechanisms.

        Now, based on the pace of progress and on statements like Google's, I believe:

        1. we need to finish rolling out PQ key exchange yesterday
        2. we need to start rolling out PQ auth now
        3. it's too late to ship any new non-PQ design or system

        https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-security/cryptography-migration-timeline/

        ikke@ipv6.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
        ikke@ipv6.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
        ikke@ipv6.social
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        @filippo Interesting, I just cam across https://infosec.exchange/@mttaggart/116163107290977793 the other day, basically saying that it won't be feasible any time soon.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • freddy@social.security.plumbingF freddy@social.security.plumbing

          @filippo I like their aggressive timeline, but I'm not sure there's any specific argument or reason that explains why it should be expedited. Am I missing something?

          R This user is from outside of this forum
          R This user is from outside of this forum
          relishthecracker@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          @freddy @filippo as far as I can tell that timeline is because that is the timeline that has been set by NSA / NIST. Google is probably just trying to protect its access to sell devices / services to the government.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • filippo@abyssdomain.expertF filippo@abyssdomain.expert

            Last year, my position was that we still had time to design PQ authentication mechanisms.

            Now, based on the pace of progress and on statements like Google's, I believe:

            1. we need to finish rolling out PQ key exchange yesterday
            2. we need to start rolling out PQ auth now
            3. it's too late to ship any new non-PQ design or system

            https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-security/cryptography-migration-timeline/

            ciantic@twit.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
            ciantic@twit.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
            ciantic@twit.social
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            @filippo You got me interested to know what it would look like in authorized_keys, and can it be this short! Looks neat.

            ssh-mldsa44-ed25519 434f4d505349472d4d4c44534134342d456432353531392d534841353132

            https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-ssh-composite-sigs/02/

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • freddy@social.security.plumbingF freddy@social.security.plumbing

              @filippo I like their aggressive timeline, but I'm not sure there's any specific argument or reason that explains why it should be expedited. Am I missing something?

              4raylee@mathstodon.xyz4 This user is from outside of this forum
              4raylee@mathstodon.xyz4 This user is from outside of this forum
              4raylee@mathstodon.xyz
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              @freddy @filippo

              Scott Aaronson writes:

              "I’m going to close this post with a warning. When Frisch and Peierls wrote their now-famous memo in March 1940, estimating the mass of Uranium-235 that would be needed for a fission bomb, they didn’t publish it in a journal, but communicated the result through military channels only. As recently as February 1939, Frisch and Meitner had published in Nature their theoretical explanation of recent experiments, showing that the uranium nucleus could fission when bombarded by neutrons. But by 1940, Frisch and Peierls realized that the time for open publication of these matters had passed.

              "Similarly, at some point, the people doing detailed estimates of how many physical qubits and gates it’ll take to break actually deployed cryptosystems using Shor’s algorithm are going to stop publishing those estimates, if for no other reason than the risk of giving too much information to adversaries. Indeed, for all we know, that point may have been passed already. This is the clearest warning that I can offer in public right now about the urgency of migrating to post-quantum cryptosystems, a process that I’m grateful is already underway."

              https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9425

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • filippo@abyssdomain.expertF filippo@abyssdomain.expert

                Last year, my position was that we still had time to design PQ authentication mechanisms.

                Now, based on the pace of progress and on statements like Google's, I believe:

                1. we need to finish rolling out PQ key exchange yesterday
                2. we need to start rolling out PQ auth now
                3. it's too late to ship any new non-PQ design or system

                https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-security/cryptography-migration-timeline/

                flux@mastodon.unwi.reF This user is from outside of this forum
                flux@mastodon.unwi.reF This user is from outside of this forum
                flux@mastodon.unwi.re
                wrote last edited by
                #7

                @filippo @cryptohagen are you following this? 🙂

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
                Reply
                • Reply as topic
                Log in to reply
                • Oldest to Newest
                • Newest to Oldest
                • Most Votes


                • Login

                • Login or register to search.
                • First post
                  Last post
                0
                • Categories
                • Recent
                • Tags
                • Popular
                • World
                • Users
                • Groups