Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Nefertiti on July 26, 2017, 01:23:06 PM
-
China building 'hack-proof' quantum Beijing to Shanghai. The specs - 4K encryptions per second, 200 users - seems dismal compared to quantum supercomputing hype. I think kung fu determination is bound to achieve alot including computing, AI, space, soccer, etc superpower.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/07/25/china-launch-unhackable-quantum-messaging-service/
China is preparing to launch a communications system that would be impossible to hack.
The quantum communication system is set to be used by 200 users from government, finance and military personal in the city of Jinan.
The Jinan Institute of Quantum Technology said the technology, which was tested earlier this month, is expected to be put into commercial use in August.
The network uses quantum key distribution to transmit messages. The connections are far more secure than current internet or telephone cables, which can be tapped and monitored.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/investing/2017/03/16/JS123311463_wwwalamycom_Shanghai-China-city-skyline-of-the-Pudong-District-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqNrzB8hrvgfJ5sESwMmBGZLV3UMlSYo_wGUpHfvbyDF4.jpg)
Quantum networks, unlike traditional systems, send messages embedded in particles of light. If any third party attempts to hack the network the quantum nature of the particles will alter the communication and cause it to be aborted, meaning the message is impossible to read or intercept.
"We plan to use the network for national defence, finance and other fields, and hope to spread it out as a pilot that if successful, can be used across China and the whole world,” said Zhou Fei, assistant director of Jinan Institute of Quantum Technology, the Financial Times reported.
The development of the quantum network is the latest demonstration of China's scientific stature. It comes after the Chinese Government earlier this month said it plans to be the global leader in artificial intelligence by 2030.
China has been building an impenetrable, "hack-proof" computer network since 2014. Last year it launched a "hack-proof" communications satellite.
The quantum communications network, which will be the longest in the world, will travel 2,000km from Beijing to Shanghai and pass through a message hub in Jinan.
More secure communications are needed as it is thought current encryption systems will be rendered obsolete by the sheer power of advanced quantum computers.
The new Jinan network cost £15 million to develop and is capable of encrypting 4,000 pieces of data a second, according to the China Daily.
China's obsession with security does not extend to many of its citizens. Last week, WhatsApp users in the country reported they had been blocked from sending videos or pictures. China's block on many internet giants and social networks has been dubbed the Great Firewall.
-
Trump has been hacking my emails, now he cant after i get this :).
-
I don't think any communication link is unhackable ... my excitement is the advent of quantum computing and kung fu's one-man race. Interesting times ahead.
Trump has been hacking my emails, now he cant after i get this :).
-
Jesus. Can someone speak to me in English, please? What the what?
-
I think the US DoD has been working with this technology for at least a decade, maybe more. I'll try find the article when I get to a computer.
-
Quantum as a concept was discovered decades ago - perhaps a century? As a technology it's been stuck for a while due to under-investment & under-exploration. I think what DoD uses is old stuff... even hitec supercomputers like IBM Watson AI, Google DeepMind, etc are not quantum - just conventional machines. China will reap big from the investment.
I think the US DoD has been working with this technology for at least a decade, maybe more. I'll try find the article when I get to a computer.
-
I think the US DoD has been working with this technology for at least a decade, maybe more. I'll try find the article when I get to a computer.
There seem to be all sorts working on quantum cryptography, especially in the USA. In fact, a company called MagiQ has actually been selling such stuff since 2005:
MagiQ Technologies was founded in 1999 with the express purpose of commercializing quantum technologies. These efforts bore fruit with the release of the world’s first commercial quantum cryptography system in 2002. Our success with this endeavor opened the door for inclusion in defense and energy-related programs which leverage our unique blend of skills and abilities to develop new technologies for the defense, communications, energy resource exploration and scientific research markets.
http://www.magiqtech.com/about-us/
But it appears that the range of their devices is quite small, and what the Chinese have done is show a much, much larger range.
-
Quantum as a concept was discovered decades ago - perhaps a century? As a technology it's been stuck for a while due to under-investment & under-exploration. I think what DoD uses is old stuff... even hitec supercomputers like IBM Watson AI, Google DeepMind, etc are not quantum - just conventional machines. China will reap big from the investment.
I think the US DoD has been working with this technology for at least a decade, maybe more. I'll try find the article when I get to a computer.
Yep. Early last century. With the discovery of the atoms. Quantum computing is supposed to rely on qubits which can store intermediate states as opposed to regular bits which store 2 states. In other words, the information that will be manipulated is of that nature. That means a whole new set of algorithms at the base level. Materials that can reliably hold this information much like semiconductors are reliable for regular bits - I think that is where there is still a major challenge.
-
Yep. Early last century. With the discovery of the atoms. Quantum computing is supposed to rely on qubits which can store intermediate states as opposed to regular bits which store 2 states. In other words, the information that will be manipulated is of that nature. That means a whole new set of algorithms at the base level. Materials that can reliably hold this information much like semiconductors are reliable for regular bits - I think that is where there is still a major challenge.
Yuh obsession is with software... while quantum is hardware... we need to redesign the chip from the diode. Seems noone wants to take the plunge - the big guns & startups. China seems to do well because it is state funded. I think there are big opportunities in computing challenges - cryptography for one - cryptocurrency (bitcoin) seem to require acres of classic servers and have to be distributed to get the power. Early birds will reap big.
-
Quantum as a concept was discovered decades ago - perhaps a century? As a technology it's been stuck for a while due to under-investment & under-exploration. I think what DoD uses is old stuff... even hitec supercomputers like IBM Watson AI, Google DeepMind, etc are not quantum - just conventional machines. China will reap big from the investment.
I would never place bets on what DoD types might be working on but not talking about. I would hardly say the development of quantum computing---which, strictly, is not what the Chinese have shown here---is stuck. IBM in particular is very busy at it, and China appears to be well behind there:
IBM's two quantum computing platforms just took a leap forward in processing power. The company announced today that it has successfully built and tested its two most powerful quantum computers yet -- the research and business-focused Quantum Experience universal computer and the prototype processor that will eventually form the core of its commercial IBM Q systems.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/17/ibm-quantum-q-experience-qubits-most-powerful-processor-yet/
https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/
As to whether China will reap big, I'd say it depends on when quantum computers become widely available and at reasonable prices, and that seems to be a long way off. My guess is that current cryptosystems will do for most people for at least a couple of decades.
-
Yuh obsession is with software... while quantum is hardware... we need to redesign the chip from the diode. Seems noone wants to take the plunge - the big guns & startups. China seems to do well because it is state funded. I think there are big opportunities in computing challenges - cryptography for one - cryptocurrency (bitcoin) seem to require acres of classic servers and have to be distributed to get the power. Early birds will reap big.
I wouldn't quite say that. Something like bitcoin requires a distributed computing system, because it is distributed by nature---not because secure cryptography is especially difficult. The mathematics of current cryptosystems is actually quite straightforward, and even you average programmer, if he understands that maths, can easily code up an unbreakable system for his laptop.
-
As to whether China will reap big, I'd say it depends on when quantum computers become widely available and at reasonable prices, and that seems to be a long way off. My guess is that current cryptosystems will do for most people for at least a couple of decades.
Yes it's all still at mainframe "supercomputer" level - that's the challenge with state-sponsored or DoD type projects - they don't think mass market or "monetization". You can see this shortcoming in NASA dismal achievements in 50+ years where flying to the moon still costs USD200B :o Enter private sector suddenly the costs plummet to millions from billions. So it's a good thing for kung fu & DoD to set the ball rolling and demo viability. Honestly current computing is stretched - cryptosystems & such heavy stuff - it's why WhatsApp, Messenger or GMail messages are "encrypted" on the server or cloud or whatever so Zuckerberg can get a court order from CIA to snoop on your privacy. Basically a fake encryption which should mean real privacy. If quantum was widely available simple gadgets would be able to handle it. Offer people a real hack-proof consumer device and and there's your big reap. The "quantum leap" is yet to happen.
-
Robina,
Here is the DARPA quantum network https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0503058.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0503058.pdf). It was launched and operational in 2003/2004.
I think the US DoD has been working with this technology for at least a decade, maybe more. I'll try find the article when I get to a computer.
There seem to be all sorts working on quantum cryptography, especially in the USA. In fact, a company called MagiQ has actually been selling such stuff since 2005:
MagiQ Technologies was founded in 1999 with the express purpose of commercializing quantum technologies. These efforts bore fruit with the release of the world’s first commercial quantum cryptography system in 2002. Our success with this endeavor opened the door for inclusion in defense and energy-related programs which leverage our unique blend of skills and abilities to develop new technologies for the defense, communications, energy resource exploration and scientific research markets.
http://www.magiqtech.com/about-us/ (http://www.magiqtech.com/about-us/)
But it appears that the range of their devices is quite small, and what the Chinese have done is show a much, much larger range.
You are right about the China thing and range. The challenge seems to be such that they can only move very little data. So this is a great accomplishment. The nature of quantum is that it is very easy to "disturb" the data - which makes it good for cryptography, but difficult to move long distances.
I don't know the current state of DARPA on the subject. But I wouldn't say they are asleep.
-
Yes it's all still at mainframe "supercomputer" level - that's the challenge with state-sponsored or DoD type projects - they don't think mass market or "monetization". You can see this shortcoming in NASA dismal achivements in 50+ years where flying to the moon still costs USD200B :o Enter private sector suddenly the costs plummet to millions from billions. So it's a good thing for kung fu & DoD to set the ball rolling and demo viability. Honestly current computing is stretched - cryptosystems & such heavy stuff - it's why WhatsApp, Messenger or GMail messages are "encrypted" on the server-side or cloud or whatever so Zuckerberg can get a court order from CIA to snoop on your privacy. Basically a fake encryption which should mean real privacy. If quantum was widely available simple gadgets would be able to handle it. Offer people a real hack-proof consumer device and and there's your big reap.
True, but that's a separate problem. Quantum computing won't change the possibility of Zuckerberg allowing the CIA to look at your stuff. In fact, it will do the opposite: with sufficient quantum-computing power the CIA will be able to crack pretty much any current cryptosystem and so won't need to ask anyone for anything. Also a cheap consumer device isn't going to do much good for the every-day person: unless he or she has his or her own network (with links of the type Kung Fu is talking about), he or she will still send and receive stuff over the usual networks, in the usual form.
-
Robina,
Here is the DARPA quantum network https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0503058.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0503058.pdf). It was launched and operational in 2003/2004.
My bad. DARPA seems quite advanced, especially the "quantum teleportation" once it's achieved. Quantum can solve many challenges - like the energy transmission problem - wireless power - where excess power in a location is useless elsewhere without cables. Electric power should be accessible like the internet.
-
Robina,
Here is the DARPA quantum network https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0503058.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0503058.pdf). It was launched and operational in 2003/2004.
My bad. DARPA seems quite advanced, especially the "quantum teleportation" once it's achieved. Quantum can solve many challenges - like the energy transmission problem - wireless power - where excess power in a location is useless elsewhere without cables. Electric power should be accessible like the internet.
Yep. When DARPA release stuff, you can be sure its a few years old and they have most likely moved onto bigger things.
Quantum and AI are a match made in heaven. AI is at its foundation, just the ability to process mountains of data. Big data. It is the application of different probability distribution functions on a huge scale. Quantum computing can make processing such huge amounts of data trivial.
-
Yes it's all still at mainframe "supercomputer" level - that's the challenge with state-sponsored or DoD type projects - they don't think mass market or "monetization". You can see this shortcoming in NASA dismal achivements in 50+ years where flying to the moon still costs USD200B :o Enter private sector suddenly the costs plummet to millions from billions. So it's a good thing for kung fu & DoD to set the ball rolling and demo viability. Honestly current computing is stretched - cryptosystems & such heavy stuff - it's why WhatsApp, Messenger or GMail messages are "encrypted" on the server-side or cloud or whatever so Zuckerberg can get a court order from CIA to snoop on your privacy. Basically a fake encryption which should mean real privacy. If quantum was widely available simple gadgets would be able to handle it. Offer people a real hack-proof consumer device and and there's your big reap.
True, but that's a separate problem. Quantum computing won't change the possibility of Zuckerberg allowing the CIA to look at your stuff. In fact, it will do the opposite: with sufficient quantum-computing power the CIA will be able to crack pretty much any current cryptosystem and so won't need to ask anyone for anything. Also a cheap consumer device isn't going to do much good for the every-day person: unless he or she has his or her own network (with links of the type Kung Fu is talking about), he or she will still send and receive stuff over the usual networks, in the usual form.
Consumer quantum means the power to encrypt would be on the user side. CIA can snoop on you now because all the power is with the service provider presently. There is no encryption democracy - which is what mass availability means.
-
Yes it's all still at mainframe "supercomputer" level - that's the challenge with state-sponsored or DoD type projects - they don't think mass market or "monetization". You can see this shortcoming in NASA dismal achivements in 50+ years where flying to the moon still costs USD200B :o Enter private sector suddenly the costs plummet to millions from billions. So it's a good thing for kung fu & DoD to set the ball rolling and demo viability. Honestly current computing is stretched - cryptosystems & such heavy stuff - it's why WhatsApp, Messenger or GMail messages are "encrypted" on the server-side or cloud or whatever so Zuckerberg can get a court order from CIA to snoop on your privacy. Basically a fake encryption which should mean real privacy. If quantum was widely available simple gadgets would be able to handle it. Offer people a real hack-proof consumer device and and there's your big reap.
True, but that's a separate problem. Quantum computing won't change the possibility of Zuckerberg allowing the CIA to look at your stuff. In fact, it will do the opposite: with sufficient quantum-computing power the CIA will be able to crack pretty much any current cryptosystem and so won't need to ask anyone for anything. Also a cheap consumer device isn't going to do much good for the every-day person: unless he or she has his or her own network (with links of the type Kung Fu is talking about), he or she will still send and receive stuff over the usual networks, in the usual form.
Consumer quantum means the power to encrypt would be on the user side. CIA can snoop on you now because all the power is with the service provider presently. There is no encryption democracy - which is what mass availability means.
You should look at it this way. The encryption just a formula. In proper encryption, this formula is asymmetric. That means you cannot reverse engineer the password(or key) for instance, from the encrypted output. The encryption result itself is passive. It just lies there waiting for the right key. There is no further processing needed from the perspective of the information owner. The processing power makes sense from the perspective of the person trying to snoop into your system.
-
Consumer quantum means the power to encrypt would be on the user side. CIA can snoop on you now because all the power is with the service provider presently. There is no encryption democracy - which is what mass availability means.
But that is quite a separate matter from whether the computing is quantum or conventional. Quantum computing won't change won't change which the "side" on which the encryption is done if service providers insist on a particular "side". As it is now, if users wish to do their own encryption of anything, they can easily do so and with little cost in computing power.
The most significant aspect of quantum computing in cryptography is not that it will make encryption of itself easier or more secure or less costly in computing power, but that it will (through enormous computing) make it easier to break most existing cryptosystems. The other significant aspect is strictly not a computing one: it is that of dealing with eavesdropping on stuff that is being communicated. The average consumer should have no cryptographic need for a quantum computer ... unless he or she is up to no good.
-
... we need to redesign the chip from the diode.
This brought to mind some sci-fi sounding stuff that I read almost a couple of decades ago. Someone was proposing a "molecular computing" machine based on the human body. Non need to buy a computer when you yourself could be the computer. A "meat machine", as one wag called it. I just poked around with Google, and believe it or not, there has been progress towards the Meat Machine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing
The new key device:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcriptor
Yes, let's skip the jokes about hacking it with a panga. :D
-
Consumer quantum means the power to encrypt would be on the user side. CIA can snoop on you now because all the power is with the service provider presently. There is no encryption democracy - which is what mass availability means.
But that is quite a separate matter from whether the computing is quantum or conventional. Quantum computing won't change won't change which the "side" on which the encryption is done if service providers insist on a particular "side". As it is now, if users wish to do their own encryption of anything, they can easily do so and with little cost in computing power.
The most significant aspect of quantum computing in cryptography is not that it will make encryption of itself easier or more secure or less costly in computing power, but that it will (through enormous computing) make it easier to break most existing cryptosystems. The other significant aspect is strictly not a computing one: it is that of dealing with eavesdropping on stuff that is being communicated. The average consumer should have no cryptographic need for a quantum computer ... unless he or she is up to no good.
I could be wrong but I understand the current encryption architecture is restricted by computing power -especially the "side" aspect.
-
I could be wrong but I understand the current encryption architecture is restricted by computing power -especially the "side" aspect.
Nop. Even the most secure cryptosystems today require relatively little computing power. The decryption too requires relatively little computing power, unless one is engaged in some mischief (i.e. doesn't know the relevant keys). If you are mathematically-minded, I can give you a short description of why that is the case.
-
I could be wrong but I understand the current encryption architecture is restricted by computing power -especially the "side" aspect.
Nop. Even the most secure cryptosystems today require relatively little computing power. The decryption too requires relatively little computing power, unless one is engaged in some mischief (i.e. doesn't know the relevant keys). If you are mathematically-minded, I can give you a short description of why that is the case.
I am mathematically minded.
-
I am mathematically minded.
OK. The algorithms (as in the mathematics of them) of modern cryptosystems are all well-known, because there is in fact no reason to keep them secret; what should be secret are the various parameters in these algorithms. As an example, the NSA, which has the responsibility for federal communications in the USA, happily makes public its algorithms, which must be used by federal agencies (and others communicating "secret" stuff with them)---for anything from "routine" classified" to "top secret". You can find plenty of stuff on the NSA website or even Wikiepdia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_B_Cryptography*** (see also the final note on "quantum resistance"). The NSA etc can make such stuff public because the key is in the key. So to speak.
[***With the prospects of quantum computing, I think it will be a wait-and-see w.r.t. Suite B, which I think is actually very secure. My guess is that the "quantum resistant" algorithms will be just variations on what we have now and will not have any fundamental changes.]
The nice thing about mathematics is that one cannot limit mathematical curiosity or brain-power or knowledge or ... to some geeks sitting in a dark basement, and in current cryptography that is neither possible, nor necessary, nor helpful. So then , to the nitty-gritty ...
The best current cryptosystems are based on one of the following:
(a) the difficulty of factoring a composite integer into primes (and even two well-chosen prime factors will do)
(b) the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms over a finite field, always a prime field. (Strictly, just about about any finite field field will do, but with a prime field it's easy to find primitive roots, quadratic residues, and such-like good stuff.)
(c) the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms on an elliptic curve defined over a finite field, almost-always prime or binary. (Any kind of finite field will probably do, but these two types are especially handy for computer use.)
[The preceding is a broad generalization, because there are some very good and well-used algorithms that are primarily based on hashing. But, again, even those are actually widely-known. Also, many systems that are primarily based on (b) and (c) additionally make use of (a).]
The key point in all of (a) to (c) is that it is a matter of computing power and time: all of the cryptosystems can be broken, but nobody loses sleep over that because current systems cannot do it in an awfully long time. Quantum computing presents very few unhappy prospects with respect to "I'll be long dead by then".
Let's consider (a): the core of the encryption will consist of the multiplication of two large primes ... not terribly difficult; and the core of the decryption requires knowledge of one of those prime and is very hard if one does not know how to quickly factor arbitrary, large composite integers ...and right now nobody knows how to do that. If one knows the prime factors, then it is just another multiplication. There are all sorts of variations on this theme---for example, those nominally based on the difficulty in being able to determine whether or not a random number is a quadratic residue---but the core of the cryptosystems boil down to the same thing.
I don't know how much you'd like, but most systems in (b) will in fact have (a) as some basis, and one can in fact interpret "logarithm" in the usual sense, except that the underlying field now is finite and addition and multiplication are defined differently. And if there is anything confusing about (c), it is in "logarithm", which most people interpret in terms of "powers".
If you are really keen, how about this: I'll give you, in a couple of paragraphs or so, how to encrypt, in a couple of hours, whatever you have on your computer, in such a way that the CIA, NSA, KGB, MI5, ABC, and XYZ will not get at it for the next 20 years or so. Unless they successfully torture you or you dog. Nothing to do with computing power or even being clever ... with (c), it's just a matter of choosing some curve and a base point on that curve.
-
Moon Ki. Not mathematically minded and did not understand much but still found it very interesting and riveting.
I am mathematically minded.
OK. The algorithms (as in the mathematics of them) of modern cryptosystems are all well-known, because there is in fact no reason to keep them secret; what should be secret are the various parameters in these algorithms. As an example, the NSA, which has the responsibility for federal communications in the USA, happily makes public its algorithms, which must be used by federal agencies (and others communicating "secret" stuff with them)---for anything from "routine" classified" to "top secret". You can find plenty of stuff on the NSA website or even Wikiepdia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_B_Cryptography*** (see also the final note on "quantum resistance"). The NSA etc can make such stuff public because the key is in the key. So to speak.
[***With the prospects of quantum computing, I think it will be a wait-and-see w.r.t. Suite B, which I think is actually very secure. My guess is that the "quantum resistant" algorithms will be just variations on what we have now and will not have any fundamental changes.]
The nice thing about mathematics is that one cannot limit mathematical curiosity or brain-power or knowledge or ... to some geeks sitting in a dark basement, and in current cryptography that is neither possible, nor necessary, nor helpful. So then , to the nitty-gritty ...
The best current cryptosystems are based on one of the following:
(a) the difficulty of factoring a composite integer into primes (and even two well-chosen prime factors will do)
(b) the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms over a finite field, always a prime field. (Strictly, just about about any finite field field will do, but with a prime field it's easy to find primitive roots, quadratic residues, and such-like good stuff.)
(c) the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms on an elliptic curve defined over a finite field, almost-always prime or binary. (Any kind of finite field will probably do, but these two types are especially handy for computer use.)
[The preceding is a broad generalization, because there are some very good and well-used algorithms that are primarily based on hashing. But, again, even those are actually widely-known. Also, many systems that are primarily based on (b) and (c) additionally make use of (a).]
The key point in all of (a) to (c) is that it is a matter of computing power and time: all of the cryptosystems can be broken, but nobody loses sleep over that because current systems cannot do it in an awfully long time. Quantum computing presents very few unhappy prospects with respect to "I'll be long dead by then".
Let's consider (a): the core of the encryption will consist of the multiplication of two large primes ... not terribly difficult; and the core of the decryption requires knowledge of one of those prime and is very hard if one does not know how to quickly factor arbitrary, large composite integers ...and right now nobody knows how to do that. If one knows the prime factors, then it is just another multiplication. There are all sorts of variations on this theme---for example, those nominally based on the difficulty in being able to determine whether or not a random number is a quadratic residue---but the core of the cryptosystems boil down to the same thing.
I don't know how much you'd like, but most systems in (b) will in fact have (a) as some basis, and one can in fact interpret "logarithm" in the usual sense, except that the underlying field now is finite and addition and multiplication are defined differently. And if there is anything confusing about (c), it is in "logarithm", which most people interpret in terms of "powers".
If you are really keen, how about this: I'll give you, in a couple of paragraphs or so, how to encrypt, in a couple of hours, whatever you have on your computer, in such a way that the CIA, NSA, KGB, MI5, ABC, and XYZ will not get at it for the next 20 years or so. Unless they successfully torture you or you dog. Nothing to do with computing power or even being clever ... with (c), it's just a matter of choosing some curve and a base point on that curve.
-
Interesting stuff. Always suspected these geek types dominate the blogosphere.
If you are really keen, how about this: I'll give you, in a couple of paragraphs or so, how to encrypt, in a couple of hours, whatever you have on your computer, in such a way that the CIA, NSA, KGB, MI5, ABC, and XYZ will not get at it for the next 20 years or so. Unless they successfully torture you or you dog. Nothing to do with computing power or even being clever ... with (c), it's just a matter of choosing some curve and a base point on that curve.
I'm really keen.