Quantum computing may *not* be better ....

[rslade]

I have been studying quantum computing, in terms of its implications for security, for some time now.  Sometimes the news is good.  Oftentimes people get it wrong.

But this news is extremely disturbing.  If the implications of this thought experiment are true, then quantum computers may be impossible.  (Or, if possible, then subject to extremely weird sorts of race conditions that make Intel architectures positively reliable ...)

[fordhamwt]

Can not quantum computing be both better and worse at the same time?

Puns aside, it was an interesting read that really leave the reader where they started, or possibly more confounded.  It definitely opens quantum computing to more questions, but hasn't that always been the case the deeper you dive into the topic?

[CEMyers]

My understanding is that Quantum computing does not just come up with the right answer, but it comes up with all possible answers and all possible routes to those answers. Thus determining the "right" answer becomes impossible as all answers are "right" in some form or another. I have also seen at least one reference that suggests there is some self-deterministic route through this whereby mankind may start off the processing, but after that the process takes on a life of its own and makes its own determination of what is, or isn't, the right "answer" to the original question. Leading to a belief that we will be unable to determine just where this takes us or who/if we deal with it on any level - not just the security level.

The security problem for me is that as an industry/profession we tend to be reactive rather than proactive.  It is nice to see some leadership thought on security before it is too late. Although ,at this time it does all seem to be theory rather than qualified/quantified fact.

[rslade]

> CEMyers (Newcomer III) posted a new reply in Industry News on 09-23-2018 10:39

> My understanding is that Quantum computing does not just come up with the right
> answer, but it comes up with all possible answers and all possible routes to
> those answers.

I think your understanding of quatum computing may have a few flaws in it.   Theoritcally, a quantum computer *tests* all possible answers.  And I'm not sure where you come up with the "all possible routes" business.  (Although you may be confusing it with one of the "particle/wave" experiments ...)

> Thus determining the "right" answer becomes impossible as all
> answers are "right" in some form or another.

I'd suggest you not hang out in parts of town where epistemologists are known to congregate in dark alleys.

> I have also seen at least one
> reference that suggests there is some self-deterministic route through this
> whereby mankind may start off the processing, but after that the process takes
> on a life of its own and makes its own determination of what is, or isn't, the
> right "answer" to the original question.

I suspect that is taking the motto of "information wants to be free" just a wee bit too far.

Also, I have seen at least one reference asserting that we are all just an idea in the mind of Stephen Hawking.

> Leading to a belief that we will be
> unable to determine just where this takes us or who/if we deal with it on any
> level - not just the security level.

I'd strongly suggest that you not try to apply this to any area of information technology, let alone information security.

>   The security problem for me is that as
> an industry/profession we tend to be reactive rather than proactive.  It is
> nice to see some leadership thought on security before it is too late. Although
> ,at this time it does all seem to be theory rather than qualified/quantified
> fact.

I thought you didn't believe in qualified/quantified fact, vis 'Thus determining the "right" answer becomes impossible as all answers are "right" in some form or another' ...

[CEMyers]

You spotted the (slightly, as it is based on one presentation I attended a couple of years back) tongue in cheek response and I like that you responded in kind.  I like to play devil's advocate sometimes but, the truth is, there is a lot talked about this topic, but not much by way of sorting "the wood from the trees".  I feel a properly informative webinar (series of webars?) may be long overdue.

[rslade]

> CEMyers (Newcomer III) posted a new reply in Industry News on 09-25-2018 02:47

>   I like to play devil's advocate sometimes but, the truth is, there is a
> lot talked about this topic, but not much by way of sorting "the wood from the
> trees".  I feel a properly informative webinar (series of webars?) may be long
> overdue.

I hate watching webinars, but I'll volunteer to do one (or a series), if you'd like:

http://itsecurity.co.uk/2016/09/security-implications-quantum-computing/

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and
a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.
- RFC 1925 #11
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB