Looks like the author has reported a bug in the presented algorithm that breaks the main result:(https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/555) As someone who has been loosely following post-quantum crypto...
Looks like the author has reported a bug in the presented algorithm that breaks the main result:(https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/555)
As someone who has been loosely following post-quantum crypto developments I have to say that the idea of having the foundation for most of the NIST selected cryptosystems turn out to be quantum insecure is pretty funny in a cosmic sense, especially because a version of this scenario has already happened where one of the final candidates for standardization turned out to be crackable using classical computation alone.
If you’re a normal person — that is, a person who doesn’t obsessively follow the latest cryptography news — you probably missed last week’s cryptography bombshell. That news comes in the form of a new e-print authored by Yilei Chen, “Quantum Algorithms for Lattice Problems“, which has roiled the cryptography research community. The result is now being evaluated by experts in lattices and quantum algorithm design (and to be clear, I am not one!) but if it holds up, it’s going to be quite a bad day/week/month/year for the applied cryptography community.
Looks like the author has reported a bug in the presented algorithm that breaks the main result:(https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/555)
As someone who has been loosely following post-quantum crypto developments I have to say that the idea of having the foundation for most of the NIST selected cryptosystems turn out to be quantum insecure is pretty funny in a cosmic sense, especially because a version of this scenario has already happened where one of the final candidates for standardization turned out to be crackable using classical computation alone.