all 6 comments

[–]raven9 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I think what they are really doing is attempting to replace existing encryption standards with phony "quantum encryption" with NSA back doors in it.

Existing standards like AES have not even been tested to their full capability. AES is based around a 4x4 array and AES 128 uses 10 rounds, AES 192 uses 12 rounds and AES 256 uses 14.

Those were the numbers chosen for speed on the computers at the time in the 1990s.

They could easily upgrade what they already know works by increasing it's complexity. For example instead of basing substitution around a 4x4 two dimensional array, use a 6x6 3 dimensional array.. Then instead of using 10, 12 or 14 rounds (depending on key size) use 16, 20 and 24 rounds and then run the entire encryption algorithm a second time using a 2nd key generated from that first set of encrypted data.

You all know to this day no one has even proven AES could be cracked in its original configuration never mind some kind of upgraded configuration like that, and then on top of that, there were other encryption algorithms like Serpent that were already more complex than AES but were not chosen to be the standard because they were slower. On todays computers that speed difference would be negligable.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    QC can easily break AES though.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]NuclearBadger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Reminds me of graphene is best ever, although it's arse and not used in anything properly

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      You actually think we'd know??? That sounds pretty gullible to me...

      [–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      [–]LarrySwinger2 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      There's something else that used to be popular on the Internet, namely a one-word reply:

      Fail.