Discussion on standardization
summary
Claim that RSA‑2048 can be broken needs 300 and something qubits but also enormous circuit depth so it’s not immediately practical; Kyber weakness is an AI-assisted side-channel attack on an implementation, not a cryptanalytic collapse; Rainbow’s quick failure is treated as evidence the NIST contest is working; operational constraints include firmware signing timelines (target 2025), certification bottlenecks like a 570 day average turnaround, scarce PKI expertise, and the messy hybrid deployments and inventory work required.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (21)
- 0:00Standardization discussion intro
- 1:02Panelist intros and moderator opening
- 2:03RSA 2048 security claim analysis
- 4:14Quantum threats and crypto risks
- 9:13Is standardization working?
- 12:01Multiple postquantum algorithms challenges
- 14:30AWS postquantum migration timelines
- 16:36NSA CNSSP 15 requirements 2025
- 18:46FIPS delays and hardware impacts
- 20:12Crypto agility and firmware signing
- 22:17Postquantum readiness for orgs
- 22:59Starting crypto inventory
- 24:52CNSSP 15 migration timelines
- 25:56Compliance and SSL intercept
- 27:17Quantum threat signs and progress
- 28:42Hybrid crypto design
- 30:27Quantum attack cost thresholds
- 30:50Too many postquantum standards risk
- 32:14Global adoption differences
- 33:58Hope for postquantum consolidation
- 34:19Closing remarks
related talks
46mAchieving Quantum Readiness: A Comprehensive Approach
45mPost‑Quantum Cryptography: The Fundamentals of Tomorrow's Digital World
32mCybersecurity in Post Quantum Era
33mWhat is it going to take to break cryptography with a quantum computer
40mQuantum Computing: One Weird Trick to Break RSA Encryption
19mAgile is the new black – Why Preparing for Postquantum Crypto also Matters to You!
41mFault Attacks & Side Channels
53mPanel: Migrating to Post-Quantum Schemes