this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
12 points (83.3% liked)

Technology

35326 readers
230 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

That was pretty interesting. I was expecting cost/benefit on adopting quantum computing, which I suspect isn't going to be terribly useful to the everyday person soon. But it was refreshingly targeted on the Cybersecurity impacts, which are valid for the everyday person, already.

TL;DR - Quantum computing is great, if you're the bad guy. For the rest of us, there's a cost/value tradeoff in defending against quantum computing threats. People will tell us it's too much hassle to upgrade our encryption, but it can be done with reasonable effort.

[–] brianary@startrek.website 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bruce Schneier has been saying for something like 25 years that technological advances always favor attackers over defenders.

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Well yeah, that's why red teaming is so much fun.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago

TL;DR - Quantum computing is great, if you're the bad guy. For the rest of us, there's a cost/value tradeoff in defending against quantum computing threats. People will tell us it's too much hassle to upgrade our encryption, but it can be done with reasonable effort.

And a big point is, it is a technology that we have to develop anyway, since big targets like governments, military or big financial or economic companies would want to defend against anyway.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

"We'll form a committee to devise an action plan to inventory current usage of cryptography to support future assessment of the steps needed to build a best-practices playbook for meeting the performance challenges of upgrading to post-quantum cryptography, with a target date after I retire."

Reminds me of Futurama

I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in.