I read this article so you don't have to. 2/13
Can quantum computers attack crypto in ways that current supercomputer clusters can't? Yes. 3/13
But quantum computers don't exist yet (as far as we know), and they can only meaningfully attack some crypto algorithms -- typically public key algorithms. Except for rare edge cases, symmetric crypto remains mostly unaffected. 4/13
There is an active domain of research called 'post-quantum cryptography'. It is populated by mathematicians and computer scientists, who develop cryptography that can serve as a drop-in replacement for the affected algorithms. 5/13
The company in question is run by physicists. As a rule, physicists are clueless about cryptography. 6/13
The attack involves quantum annealing, which is a physical process akin to brute force search. It does not outperform Grover's algorithm in terms of computational complexity. 7/13
Grover's algorithm is the quantum analogue of brute force search. You need a quantum computer to implement Grover's algorithm, but you might not need a quantum computer to do quantum annealing. 8/13
Grover's algorithm is not enough to jeopardize the security of AES. You need an algorithmic or mathematical insight to do that. Such an insight would make the discoverer instantly famous in the crypto world. 9/13
AES is not a hash function and makes no claims about inversion being hard. It is not clear if this implication is the result of the reporter's confusion or if Terra Quantum's claim to fame actually is being able to invert AES. 10/13
Terra Quantum has developed an alternative to using AES for encryption based on quantum key distribution. If AES is secure, then there is no merit to quantum key distribution. In order to sell QKD, you need AES to be insecure. 11/13
How convenient that this breakthrough result about the supposed insecurity of AES is found just as Terra Quantum receives a patent for its technology! The convenience would be complete if they were in the middle of fundraising. 12/13
I have written about quantum key distribution before. TLDR: don't. https://t.co/4lxnot8pN4 13/13

You May Also Like

Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.