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