POST Quantum-Resistant

The news that IBM has used a quantum computer to solve a problem that that stumps the leading classical methods is another step on the road to what has become known as “quantum advantage”, where a quantum system solves a problem that cannot be solved by any amount of classical computation. For those of us in around fintech, the one problem that we really want to solve is breaking public key cryptography so that we can forge digital singatures, get access to bank systems and, of course, steal a lot of Bitcoin.

This is important stuff. In the British government’s new technology strategy, quantum computing is one of the “priority” technologies and it is easy to udnerstand why. That point about solving problems beyond the reach of exisiting computers means that there is something of an arms race underway, with quantum supremacy as the goal. One of the interesting problems that quantum computer can solve is breaking the asymmetric cryptography at the heart of cryptocurrency in order to transfer money out of lost or abandoned wallets. If you look at Bitcoin, for example the accountants Deloitte reckon that about four million Bitcoins will be vulnerable to such an attack. That means are billions of dollars up for grabs in a quantum computing digital dumpster dive.

It will take a while to get to the aforementioned quantum supremacy, where quantum computers can outgun the classical incumbents. Detail calculations by people who what they are talking about. But… the IBM solution is already at 127 qubits (quantum bits). If quantum computers are put up against a classical supercomputers capable of up to a quintillion (10^18) floating-point operations per second, quantum supremacy could be reached with as few as 208 qubits. Quantum supremacy isn’t science fiction.

If we apply quantum computers the problem of breaking the 256-bit elliptic curve encryption of keys in the Bitcoin network within the small available time frame in which it would actually pose a threat to do so, researchers calculaton it would require 317 × 106 physical qubits to break the encryption within one hour using the surface code, a code cycle time of 1 μs, a reaction time of 10 μs, and a physical gate error of 10−3 10 − 3 . To instead break the encryption within one day, it would require 13 × 106 physical qubits. So never mind quantum supremacy with a few hundred quibits, quantum computers would need millions of physical qubits to be a threat to Bitcoin.

Nevertheless, quantum computing will come. So is the sky falling in for the banks and the credit card companies and mobile operators and the military and everyone else who uses public key cryptography then? Well, no. They are not idiots with their heads in the sand and they are already planning to adopt a new generation of Quantum Resistant Cryptographic (QRC) algorithms to defend their data against the inevitable onslaught from quantum computers in unfriendly hands. They have been looking towards the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which last year selected a set of algorithms designed to withstand such an onslaught after a six-year effort to devise encryption methods that could resist an attack from a future quantum computer that is more powerful than the comparatively limited machines available today. NIST has now released these algorithms as standards ready for use out in the wild.

If you are interestied in the details, he algorithms are:

CRYSTALS-Kyber, designed for general encryption purposes such as creating secure websites, is covered in FIPS 203;

CRYSTALS-Dilithium, designed to protect the digital signatures we use when signing documents remotely, is covered in FIPS 204;

SPHINCS+, also designed for digital signatures, is covered in FIPS 205;

FALCON, also designed for digital signatures, is slated to receive its own draft FIPS in 2024.

These algorithms are important because while there are no Bitcoin-stealing quantum computers around right now, they will come. As the quantum technology advances, there will be an inevitable competition between the quantum computers that can break cryptographic algorithms and the cryptography community’s efforts to develop quantum-resistant algorithms. This means there will be a period where entities (eg, Visa and the DoD, not just Bitcoin) will be transitioning to new cryptographic methods, which is why the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has just issued a note calling on critical infrastructure and other organizations to begin work now to create road maps for how they’ll migrate to QRC.

(The cryptocurrency world should follow suit so that if and when quantum computers become a threat, then cryptocurrencies can be updated to use QRC. This would be a significant undertaking, but it’s theoretically possible.)

Technology strategists in banks, fintechs and “crypto” know why these standard algorithms are being pushed out now, when any actual quantum computer is still some years away. The fact is that you can be at risk from quantum computers that do not yet exist because of what is know as the “harvest now, decrypt later” attack. It’s the idea that your enemy could copy your data, which is encrypted, and they can hold onto it right now. They can’t read it. But maybe when a quantum computer comes out in 10 years, then they can get access to your data. If the information you’re protecting is valuable enough, then you’re already in trouble because of that threat. 

Quantum computers are coming. It’s best to be prepared.

FedNow Is a Reminder That Payments Aren’t Crypto’s Differentiator

xxx

Transaction fees for FedNow are expected to be in the range of $0.05 each or less. Automated Clearing House (ACH), the most common inter-bank payment method in the U.S., presently costs between $0.25 and up depending on the provider. Bitcoin fees average around $1, though they can vary a lot, and transaction fees on Ethereum are similarly high and variable.  Both Bitcoin and Ethereum have accelerator networks that can bring costs back down towards $0.04, though these are not yet widely available and we don’t have experience with large volumes to know if they will stay that low.

From: FedNow Is a Reminder That Payments Aren’t Crypto’s Differentiator.

xxx

IIW Challenge #1: Sovereign Identity in the Great Silo Forest | Doc Searls Weblog

Doc Searls has long been a champion of self-sovereign identity. Many years go he wrote that

Go into your browser prefs and hunt down the place where your logins and passwords are kept. Every one of those login/password combinations is for a different you, that each different system knows separately, owns separately and controls separately.

From: IIW Challenge #1: Sovereign Identity in the Great Silo Forest | Doc Searls Weblog.

xxx

Met police on high alert after supplier IT security breach | Metropolitan police | The Guardian

xxx

The Metropolitan police are on high alert after a security breach involving the IT system of one of their suppliers.

Scotland Yard is working with the company to try to understand the scale of the incident.

The company had access to names, ranks, photos, vetting levels and pay numbers for officers and staff, but did not hold personal information such as addresses, phone numbers or financial details, the force said.

From: Met police on high alert after supplier IT security breach | Metropolitan police | The Guardian.

xxx

FedNow Is a Reminder That Payments Aren’t Crypto’s Differentiator

Paul Brody is Global Blockchain Leader for EY (Ernst & Young).

Payments, especially those across borders, are often touted as a key use case and value proposition for the blockchain industry. Unfortunately, a look at both the technology, competition, and regulatory environment doesn’t really support that idea. . 

From: FedNow Is a Reminder That Payments Aren’t Crypto’s Differentiator.

xxx

FedNow launch hints at payments wars to come

xxx

Why it matters: Interchange fees — the swipe fees paid by merchants when customers pay by credit card — reached $100 billion in 2022, per Matt Schulz of Lending Tree. That’s more than $800 per household.

In order to encourage credit card usage, issuers give cash, miles, or other rewards to consumers. The top six card issuers spent $67 billion on such activities last year.

From: FedNow launch hints at payments wars to come.

xxx

VOTER BEWARE! Personal Liability for DAO Token Holders for Voting? | Paul Hastings LLP

xxx

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (“DAOs”) provide a new way for individuals across the globe to use blockchain technology to pool resources, collaborate, and otherwise interact in a more participatory, fluid and decentralized manner than traditional corporate entities. A new CFTC order, however, carries significant potential implications for DAO structures and participation by suggesting that voting alone is enough for personal liability for the actions of a DAO.

From: VOTER BEWARE! Personal Liability for DAO Token Holders for Voting? | Paul Hastings LLP.

xxx

Don’t whitewash the history of bank regulators’ abusive practices | American Banker

xxx

As part of a bipartisan effort to enable cannabis firms to access the banking system, Congress is considering limiting regulators’ power to pressure banks to cut off customers who, while engaged in legal practices, are considered unsavory or unpopular. The use of this concept, called reputation risk, has been abused by regulators several times in the past. That they have pressed financial institutions to de-bank legal-but-disfavored clients, with little to no independent legal justification or public safety value, is quite clear. Unfortunately, this good-faith effort by Congress is spawning an attempt to airbrush real cases of regulatory abuse out of history.

From: Don’t whitewash the history of bank regulators’ abusive practices | American Banker.

xxx

POST Metaverse Passports

China’s state-owned telecoms operator China Mobile, put forward proposals for a “Digital Identity System” for all users of the Metaverse at the second meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Metaverse Focus Group in Shanghai in July 2023. (The ITU is a United Nationa agency and plays influential role in defining the ground rules for global telecommunications). The Chinese operator said that the digital ID should work with “natural characteristics” and “social characteristics” that include a range of personal data points like people’s occupation, “identifiable signs” and other attributes. They also suggested this information be “permanently” stored and shared with law enforcement “to keep the order and safety of the virtual world.”

(The proposals even provides the example of a noxious user called Tom — an ideal stand-in for whoever uses the fledgling technology, for instance for gaming or socializing — who “spreads rumors and makes chaos in the metaverse”; the digital identity system would allow the police to promptly identify and punish him.

We do of course need a means to take credentials associated with sovereign identity and use them in the Metaverse, but the special case of a virtual identity of Alice’s that is a homonym of her physical identity Alice (eg, her passport) should be seen as just that: a special case. Generally speaking, we do not see sovereign identities at the heart of the Metaverse.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started