faq: What does "Post Quantum Secure" mean?

22 May 2013

Text Size

Expert Opinions

Public key crypto key exchanges (RSA, D&H, ECC) would be ‘flat-lined’ under a quantum computer attack … "Open Problem”

Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), Public Key Cryptography 30th Anniversary Conference, Dec 2006
“Consider the use of smart cards ... for especially critical functions. Although more costly than software, when properly implemented the assurance gain is great. The form-factor is not as important as the existence of an isolated processor and address space for assured operations – an ‘Island of Security,’ if you will. Such devices can communicate with each other through secure protocols and provide a web of security connecting secure nodes located across a sea of insecurity in the global net.”

Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), "We need assurance!", 1999-2008
"One often hears recommendations for key-sizes of public-key cryptosystems needed to obtain security for 30 years and even 50 years. Anyone wanting a real security of this magnitude should probably take the construction of the quantum computer into consideration."

ECRYPT, “D.PROVI.3 – First Summary Report on Unconditionally Secure Protocols”, January 2005
“Advances have often been done in steps, and beyond approximately 10 years into the future, the general feeling among ECRYPT partners is that recommendations made today should be assigned a rather small confidence level, perhaps in particular for asymmetric primitives.”

European ECRYPT Network of Excellence, “Yearly Report on Algorithms and Key Lengths (2007-2008)", 2008
"The future ability of quantum computers might be a decade or two away, their future ability to break public-key cryptography has important implications for the encryption of highly sensitive information today. For these applications, we must already design new public-key cryptosystems and one-way functions that are immune to quantum cryptanalysis."

ARDA, Report of the Quantum Information Science and Technology Experts Panel, 2004
"History has taught us: never underestimate the amount of money, time, and effort someone will expend to thwart a security system. It's always better to assume the worst. Assume your adversaries are better than they are. Assume science and technology will soon be able to do things they cannot yet. Give yourself a margin for error. Give yourself more security than you need today. When the unexpected happens, you'll be glad you did."

Bruce Schneier, "Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks", 1997
"Today’s systems must anticipate future attacks. Any comprehensive system – whether for authenticated communications, secure data storage, or electronic commerce – is likely to remain in use for five years or more. It must be able to withstand the future: smarter attackers, more computational power, and greater incentives to subvert a widespread system. There won’t be time to upgrade it in the field."

Bruce Schneier, "Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks", 1997
“Systems built without requirements cannot fail; They merely offer surprises. Usually unpleasant!

Robert Morris, former Chief Scientist of the US National Security Agency (NSA), National Computer Security Center, 1995
"Security and dependability issues typically go along with the life cycle of a technology. The trend to first deploy a technology and later fix its problems – typically driven by economic motives – is gradually making way for security by design, resulting in improved security at the beginning of the life cycle."
SecurIST, “D3.3 – ICT Security & Dependability Research beyond 2010: Final Strategy”, January 2007
“We are a cyber nation. The U.S. information infrastructure--including telecommunications and computer networks and systems and the data that reside on them--is critical to virtually every aspect of modern life. This information infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to exploitation, disruption, and destruction by a growing array of adversaries.”

The National Coordination Office (NCO) for Networking Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD), Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250).
“The current way which organisations approach security can be recognised as an underlying market failure which consists of fire fighting security problems, silo'd implementation of technologies, uncontrolled application development practices and a failure to address systemic problems. Organisations tend to deal with one problem at a time that results in the deployment of point solutions to treat singular problems. This failure is typical of an uncontrolled marketplace evolving with little or no co-ordination.”

The British Government’s Technology Strategy Board, 2008
"But conventional security is not enough. The complexity of today's operational environment means organisations must embrace a level of business resilience that is normally associated with the protection of critical national infrastructure."

Detica, a BAE Systems Company
“When will we be secure? Nobody knows for sure – but it cannot happen before commercial security products and services possess not only enough functionality to satisfy customers’ stated needs, but also sufficient assurance of quality, reliability, safety, and appropriateness for use. Such assurances are lacking in most of today’s commercial security products and services.”

Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), "We need Assurance", 2005
"Unfortunately, the security issues of a technology near the end of its lifetime are typically overlooked. The best known example is that of cryptographic keys and algorithms which may need to offer in some cases security for 50 to 100 years."
SecurIST, “D3.3 – ICT Security & Dependability Research beyond 2010: Final Strategy”, January 2007
Florence Luy asks the question: "Is the writing on the wall for 1024-bit (RSA) encryption?"
Dutch mathematician Hendrik Willem Lenstra: "The answer to that question is an unqualified yes."

Florence Luy, Hendrik Lenstra, “A mighty number falls”, 21 May 2007, École Polytechnicque Fédérale de Lausanne
“Never underestimate the attention, risk, money and time that an opponent will put into reading traffic.”

Robert Morris, former Chief Scientist of the US National Security Agency (NSA), National Computer Security Center, "Crypto '95 invited talks by R. Morris and A. Shamir", 1995
“Business now relies on information infrastructures that are interlinked and interdependent… The way in which these hidden interdependencies pervade our everyday lives is staggering and, in some cases, may go unchecked for many years until an incident occurs that revels the true nature of the interdependences' impact.”

The British Government’s Technology Strategy Board, 2008
“New concepts for quantum computer implementations, algorithms, and advances in the theoretical understanding of the physics requirements for quantum computers appear almost weekly in the scientific literature.”

ARDA, Report of the Quantum Information Science and Technology Experts Panel
“The time needed to factor an RSA integer is the same order as the time needed to use that same integer as modulus for a single RSA encryption. In other words, it takes no more time to break RSA on a quantum computer (up to a multiplicative constant) than to use it legitimately on a classical computer.”

Professor Gilles Brassard, "Quantum Information Processing: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", 1997
"Given their power to intercept and disrupt secret communications, it is not surprising that quantum computers have the attention of various U.S. government agencies. The National Security Agency, which supports research in quantum computing, candidly declares that given its interest in keeping U.S. government communications secure, it is loath to see quantum computers built. On the other hand, if they can be built, then it wants to have the first one.”

Prof Seth Lloyd of MIT, MIT Review 2008