XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   c186282  writes:   
   > On 12/29/25 15:48, Richard Kettlewell wrote:   
   >> c186282  writes:   
   >>> On 12/29/25 09:31, Peter Flass wrote:   
   >>>> Right now, but people who work with this stuff are worried about   
   >>>> what quantum computers can do with it.   
   >>>   
   >>>    There are some supposedly 'quantum-resistant' encryption   
   >>>    tools out there now. Haven't tried any yet, and don't have   
   >>>    a big quantum box to test on.   
   >> You do not need any kind of ‘quantum box’ to explore post-quantum   
   >> cryptography. A general-purpose computer from this century will do just   
   >> fine.   
   >   
   > But I can't test the 'resistance' factor ...   
      
   The security of cryptographic algorithms isn’t established empirically,   
   but mathematically. https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/607.pdf is an example   
   (I wouldn’t recommend using Leighton-Micali signatures unless you have   
   no choice, but it’s one of the easier PQC algorithms to understand, if   
   you want to study something.)   
      
   --   
   https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)