Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.computer.security > #5395 > unrolled thread

Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto?

Back to article view | Back to alt.computer.security

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2015-10-21 23:39 +0200
    Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2015-10-21 14:47 -0700
      Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-21 16:42 -0600
        Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? meagain <rick0.merrill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 15:31 -0400
          Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 19:47 +0000
            Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 15:47 -0600
            Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2015-10-28 14:49 -0700
              Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-28 22:23 +0000
                Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2015-10-29 19:56 +0100
          A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 12:50 -0700
            Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-27 21:18 +0100
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 20:49 +0000
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-27 22:06 +0100
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 21:44 +0000
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 13:53 -0700
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 21:43 +0000
                  Better Randomness ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 22:41 -0700
                    Re: Better Randomness ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 14:33 +0000
                      Re: Better Randomness ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:36 -0500
                        Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:56 -0400
                      Re: Better Randomness ? ! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:46 -0400
                      QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 08:28 -0700
                        Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:48 -0400
                          RDRAND has numerous problems. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:35 -0700
                        Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 16:17 +0000
                          QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:50 -0700
                      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-10-29 19:38 +0100
                        Re: Better Randomness ? ! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:14 +0000
                          Re: Better Randomness ? ! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-29 13:10 -0700
                    Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0400
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 07:07 -0500
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:13 -0600
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-29 00:27 +0000
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2015-10-28 14:59 -0700
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-28 22:21 +0000
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:14 -0600
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 16:29 -0700
                      Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-29 15:43 -0600
                      Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2015-10-29 23:36 +0100
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. "Rice Rocketeer" <ricerocketeer@somemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:57 +0100
            Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 15:47 -0600
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 15:38 -0700
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-10-27 22:29 -0400
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 23:02 -0600
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-28 10:19 +0000
                      Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:20 -0600
                        Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-29 18:32 +0000
                          Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:19 +0000
                            Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-29 20:46 -0600
                              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-30 09:13 +0000
                                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-30 15:58 -0600
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 22:58 -0600
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 22:47 +0000
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 23:34 -0600
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-28 19:08 +0000
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:22 -0600
          Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 15:46 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#5395 — Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto?

In article <637756e68148fcbce5a733a00e35faff@hoi-polloi.org>
Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> Via SlashDot.org
> There have been rumors for years that the NSA can decrypt a
> significant fraction of encrypted Internet traffic. In 2012, James
> Bamford published an article quoting anonymous former NSA officials
> stating that the agency had achieved a "computing breakthrough" that
> gave them "the ability to crack current public encryption." The
> Snowden documents also hint at some extraordinary capabilities: they
> show that NSA has built extensive infrastructure to intercept and
> decrypt VPN traffic and suggest that the agency can decrypt at least
> some HTTPS and SSH connections on demand.
>
> However, the documents do not explain how these breakthroughs work,
> and speculation about possible backdoors or broken algorithms has been
> rampant in the technical community. Yesterday at ACM CCS, one of the
> leading security research venues, we and twelve coauthors presented a
> paper that we think solves this technical mystery.
>
> If a client and server are speaking Diffie-Hellman, they first need to
> agree on a large prime number with a particular form. There seemed to
> be no reason why everyone couldn't just use the same prime, and, in
> fact, many applications tend to use standardized or hard-coded primes.
> But there was a very important detail that got lost in translation
> between the mathematicians and the practitioners: an adversary can
> perform a single enormous computation to "crack" a particular prime,
> then easily break any individual connection that uses that prime.
>
> https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy-ccs15.pdf

This is not a new problem.

http://instantlogic.net/publications/DiffieHellman.pdf

4 x 8 node 6600 based VAXClusters combined with a Cray were 
routinely cracking this years ago.

To be fair, most of the exploits were the result of lazy, stupid 
or incompetent programmers.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5396

On 10/21/15 14:39, Jeremy Bentham so wittily quipped:
> In article <637756e68148fcbce5a733a00e35faff@hoi-polloi.org>
> Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>>
>> Via SlashDot.org
>> There have been rumors for years that the NSA can decrypt a
>> significant fraction of encrypted Internet traffic. In 2012, James
>> Bamford published an article quoting anonymous former NSA officials
>> stating that the agency had achieved a "computing breakthrough" that
>> gave them "the ability to crack current public encryption." The
>> Snowden documents also hint at some extraordinary capabilities: they
>> show that NSA has built extensive infrastructure to intercept and
>> decrypt VPN traffic and suggest that the agency can decrypt at least
>> some HTTPS and SSH connections on demand.
>>
>> However, the documents do not explain how these breakthroughs work,
>> and speculation about possible backdoors or broken algorithms has been
>> rampant in the technical community. Yesterday at ACM CCS, one of the
>> leading security research venues, we and twelve coauthors presented a
>> paper that we think solves this technical mystery.
>>
>> If a client and server are speaking Diffie-Hellman, they first need to
>> agree on a large prime number with a particular form. There seemed to
>> be no reason why everyone couldn't just use the same prime, and, in
>> fact, many applications tend to use standardized or hard-coded primes.
>> But there was a very important detail that got lost in translation
>> between the mathematicians and the practitioners: an adversary can
>> perform a single enormous computation to "crack" a particular prime,
>> then easily break any individual connection that uses that prime.
>>
>> https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy-ccs15.pdf
> 
> This is not a new problem.

true, but the confirmation of NSA's capabilities might be.

> To be fair, most of the exploits were the result of lazy, stupid 
> or incompetent programmers.

not surprising.


but since openssl gives you the ability to create new [reasonably
secure] DH parameters, there's no excuse to re-use them, particularly
for multiple clients.  [same client, no problem, just issue new ones for
each session or whatever]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5397

On 10/21/15 15:47, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> On 10/21/15 14:39, Jeremy Bentham so wittily quipped:
>> In article<637756e68148fcbce5a733a00e35faff@hoi-polloi.org>
>> Anonymous<anonymous@hoi-polloi.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Via SlashDot.org
>>> There have been rumors for years that the NSA can decrypt a
>>> significant fraction of encrypted Internet traffic. In 2012, James
>>> Bamford published an article quoting anonymous former NSA officials
>>> stating that the agency had achieved a "computing breakthrough" that
>>> gave them "the ability to crack current public encryption." The
>>> Snowden documents also hint at some extraordinary capabilities: they
>>> show that NSA has built extensive infrastructure to intercept and
>>> decrypt VPN traffic and suggest that the agency can decrypt at least
>>> some HTTPS and SSH connections on demand.
>>>
>>> However, the documents do not explain how these breakthroughs work,
>>> and speculation about possible backdoors or broken algorithms has been
>>> rampant in the technical community. Yesterday at ACM CCS, one of the
>>> leading security research venues, we and twelve coauthors presented a
>>> paper that we think solves this technical mystery.
>>>
>>> If a client and server are speaking Diffie-Hellman, they first need to
>>> agree on a large prime number with a particular form. There seemed to
>>> be no reason why everyone couldn't just use the same prime, and, in
>>> fact, many applications tend to use standardized or hard-coded primes.
>>> But there was a very important detail that got lost in translation
>>> between the mathematicians and the practitioners: an adversary can
>>> perform a single enormous computation to "crack" a particular prime,
>>> then easily break any individual connection that uses that prime.
>>>
>>> https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy-ccs15.pdf
>>
>> This is not a new problem.
>
> true, but the confirmation of NSA's capabilities might be.
>
>> To be fair, most of the exploits were the result of lazy, stupid
>> or incompetent programmers.
>
> not surprising.
>
>
> but since openssl gives you the ability to create new [reasonably
> secure] DH parameters, there's no excuse to re-use them, particularly
> for multiple clients.  [same client, no problem, just issue new ones for
> each session or whatever]
>
>
>
Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the 
job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum 
computers, then it has already been done.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5398

GreyCloud wrote on 10/21/2015 6:42 PM:
> On 10/21/15 15:47, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>> On 10/21/15 14:39, Jeremy Bentham so wittily quipped:
>>> In article<637756e68148fcbce5a733a00e35faff@hoi-polloi.org>
>>> Anonymous<anonymous@hoi-polloi.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Via SlashDot.org
>>>> There have been rumors for years that the NSA can decrypt a
>>>> significant fraction of encrypted Internet traffic. In 2012, James
>>>> Bamford published an article quoting anonymous former NSA officials
>>>> stating that the agency had achieved a "computing breakthrough" that
>>>> gave them "the ability to crack current public encryption." The
>>>> Snowden documents also hint at some extraordinary capabilities: they
>>>> show that NSA has built extensive infrastructure to intercept and
>>>> decrypt VPN traffic and suggest that the agency can decrypt at least
>>>> some HTTPS and SSH connections on demand.
>>>>
>>>> However, the documents do not explain how these breakthroughs work,
>>>> and speculation about possible backdoors or broken algorithms has been
>>>> rampant in the technical community. Yesterday at ACM CCS, one of the
>>>> leading security research venues, we and twelve coauthors presented a
>>>> paper that we think solves this technical mystery.
>>>>
>>>> If a client and server are speaking Diffie-Hellman, they first need to
>>>> agree on a large prime number with a particular form. There seemed to
>>>> be no reason why everyone couldn't just use the same prime, and, in
>>>> fact, many applications tend to use standardized or hard-coded primes.
>>>> But there was a very important detail that got lost in translation
>>>> between the mathematicians and the practitioners: an adversary can
>>>> perform a single enormous computation to "crack" a particular prime,
>>>> then easily break any individual connection that uses that prime.
>>>>
>>>> https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy-ccs15.pdf
>>>
>>> This is not a new problem.
>>
>> true, but the confirmation of NSA's capabilities might be.
>>
>>> To be fair, most of the exploits were the result of lazy, stupid
>>> or incompetent programmers.
>>
>> not surprising.
>>
>>
>> but since openssl gives you the ability to create new [reasonably
>> secure] DH parameters, there's no excuse to re-use them, particularly
>> for multiple clients.  [same client, no problem, just issue new ones for
>> each session or whatever]
>>
>>
>>
> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.  If you
> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
> already been done.

And how many Qbits does it have??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5399

On 2015-10-27, meagain <rick0.merrill@gmail.com> wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote on 10/21/2015 6:42 PM:
>>>
>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.  If you
>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
>> already been done.

Since talk about quantum computers began in the 80s (eg Feynman) it had
already been done then?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5408

On 10/27/15 13:47, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-10-27, meagain<rick0.merrill@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote on 10/21/2015 6:42 PM:
>>>>
>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.  If you
>>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
>>> already been done.
>
> Since talk about quantum computers began in the 80s (eg Feynman) it had
> already been done then?
>
They said they were building one in Utah.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5429

On 10/27/15 12:47, William Unruh so wittily quipped:
> On 2015-10-27, meagain <rick0.merrill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote on 10/21/2015 6:42 PM:
>>>>
>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.  If you
>>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
>>> already been done.
> 
> Since talk about quantum computers began in the 80s (eg Feynman) it had
> already been done then?
> 

I don't think a true 'quantum computer' exists.  A massive multi-CPU
monstrosity, yeah, I think China has one already.  IBM's "Watson" for
example.  It plays jeopardy.  And wins.

But anyway, true 'quantum computing', where the answers are instantly
available within a single instruction cycle, doesn't work.

still, you can get *really* close with clever threaded algorithms and
massive SMP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5432

On 2015-10-28, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> On 10/27/15 12:47, William Unruh so wittily quipped:
>> On 2015-10-27, meagain <rick0.merrill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> GreyCloud wrote on 10/21/2015 6:42 PM:
>>>>>
>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.  If you
>>>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
>>>> already been done.
>> 
>> Since talk about quantum computers began in the 80s (eg Feynman) it had
>> already been done then?
>> 
>
> I don't think a true 'quantum computer' exists.  A massive multi-CPU

True quantum computers exist. Unfortunately the ones know to be quantum
only have about 5 bits. 

> monstrosity, yeah, I think China has one already.  IBM's "Watson" for
> example.  It plays jeopardy.  And wins.
Your examples have absoltuely nothing to do with quantum computers. 

>
> But anyway, true 'quantum computing', where the answers are instantly
> available within a single instruction cycle, doesn't work.

That is not the definition of a quantum computer. 

>
> still, you can get *really* close with clever threaded algorithms and
> massive SMP.

No.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5442

In article <n0rhst$vnk$2@dont-email.me>
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>

> That is not the definition of a quantum computer.
>
> >
> > still, you can get *really* close with clever threaded algorithms and
> > massive SMP.
>
> No.

Yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5400 — A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.  If you
> > hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
> > already been done.
> 
> And how many Qbits does it have??

Without looking, I know that 
a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5401 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

 wrote:

> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>> > job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>> 
>> And how many Qbits does it have??
> 
> Without looking, I know that
> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

And as usual, you are wrong

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5402 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
On 2015-10-27, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>  wrote:
>
>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>>> > job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>>> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>>> 
>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>> 
>> Without looking, I know that
>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>
> And as usual, you are wrong

Of course it would be good, if one wants to prevent this discussion from
degenerating into a grade 2 shouting match, for you to give evidence for
your statement.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5404 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

William Unruh wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
> On 2015-10-27, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>>> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>>>> > job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>>>> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>>>> 
>>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>> 
>>> Without looking, I know that
>>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>
>> And as usual, you are wrong
> 
> Of course it would be good, if one wants to prevent this discussion from
> degenerating into a grade 2 shouting match, for you to give evidence for
> your statement.

To scum like Relff? Are you kidding? That POS isn't worth top be pissed on

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5406 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

On 2015-10-27, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> William Unruh wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
>> On 2015-10-27, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>>>> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>>>>> > job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>>>>> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>>> 
>>>> Without looking, I know that
>>>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> And as usual, you are wrong
>> 
>> Of course it would be good, if one wants to prevent this discussion from
>> degenerating into a grade 2 shouting match, for you to give evidence for
>> your statement.
>
> To scum like Relff? Are you kidding? That POS isn't worth top be pissed on

Had you wanted to talk to him, you could have emailed him. But you are
engaging in a public discussion, and as such you owe it to the others
who might be reading your posts to to behave responsibly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5403 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

In article <n0om2e$ok6$1@dont-email.me>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>  wrote:
> 
> > GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
> >> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
> >> > job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
> >> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
> >> 
> >> And how many Qbits does it have??
> > 
> > Without looking, I know that
> > a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
> 
> And as usual, you are wrong

The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global 
minimum of a function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5405 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

On 2015-10-27, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <n0om2e$ok6$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Peter K?hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> > GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>> >> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>> >> > job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>> >> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>> >> 
>> >> And how many Qbits does it have??
>> > 
>> > Without looking, I know that
>> > a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>> 
>> And as usual, you are wrong
>
> The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global 
> minimum of a function.

That is of course sufficient to solve almost all problems if it is true. 
Factoring-- find the minimum over p and q  of ( p q -n)^2 where n is the number and p
and q are the factors. 

Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
is incredibly powerful.

Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can. That is
still somewhat up in the air. And whether their computer actually uses
quantum mechanics in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).




>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5416 — Better Randomness ? !

Professor William_Unruh wrote:
> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
> is incredibly powerful.
> 
> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can. 
> 
> That is still somewhat up in the air. 
> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).

Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.

Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
How ? !

I used genetic algorithms back in 1992;
it's no big deal, nothing new.

"Randomness" is just ignorance, nothing more.
Intrinsically, the (4D) timescape is static, immutable.
"Life" is virtual, not real.

We're robots, programmed to want food, water, air, etc.

Like the sun, stars and everything else...
we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work);
i.e. we ratchet entropy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5420 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Professor William_Unruh wrote:
>> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>> is incredibly powerful.
>> 
>> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
>> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can. 
>> 
>> That is still somewhat up in the air. 
>> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
>> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).

>Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.

>Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
>better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
>How ? !

Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, "ignorance" as you put 
it.  Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.

On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as 
radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

<snip crap>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5421 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

Michael Moroney wrote:

>Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

*plonk*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5451 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

On 10/28/2015 10:36 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
> *plonk*
>
excellent choice! Rolf gets it all the time.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.computer.security

csiph-web