Post-quantum defaults
Robert J. Hansen
rjh at sixdemonbag.org
Tue Apr 7 02:24:29 CEST 2026
> The other one involves something called neutral atoms. This
> technology has better noise performance. But it is a different
> technology. It appears that we don't know how to run a relevant
> algorithm on it at this time in a useful way. The paper refers to
> "engineering challenges". So I think this is the one to pay
> attention to in the next few months. We need to wait for comments
> from knowledgeable critics.
Yes and no.
Scott Aaronson, a widely respected quantum computational theorist, had
this to say in December 2025:
When Frisch and Peierls wrote their now-famous memo
in March 1940, estimating the mass of Uranium-235
that would be needed for a fission bomb, they didn't
publish it in a journal, but communicated the result
through military channels only. As recently as
February 1939, Frisch and Meitner had published in
_Nature_ their theoretical explanation of recent
experiments, showing that the uranium nucleus could
fission when bombarded by neutrons. But by 1940,
Frisch and Peierls realized that the time for open
publication of these matters had passed.
Similarly, at some point, the people doing detailed
estimates of how many physical qubits and gates
it'll take to break actually deployed cryptosystems
using Shor's algorithm are going to stop publishing
those estimates, if for no other reason than the
risk of giving too much information to adversaries.
Indeed, for all we know, that point may have been
passed already. This is the clearest warning that I
can offer in public right now about the urgency of
migrating to post-quantum cryptosystems, a process
that I'm grateful is already underway.
For many years now my own personal, private, rule-of-thumb, educated
guess, wild hope, semi-informed nonsense, however you want to put it,
has been "I need to migrate to post-quantum cryptography while the risk
of breaking RSA-2048 in the next five years feels to be under 1%."
It no longer feels like it's under 1%, and that motivates me to ask when
GnuPG is going to migrate the standard keypair to PQC.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20260406/437b073b/attachment.sig>
More information about the Gnupg-users
mailing list