The main twist is that we don't know the future but we know how theorical QCs are able to break currently used cryptography, with QCs algorithm like the Shor algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
"As such, as quantum technology advances, there is the potential for future quantum computers to have a significant impact on current cryptographic systems. Forecasting the future is difficult, but the general consensus is that such computers might arrive some time in the 2030s, or might not arrive until 2050 or later." quoted from:
> The main twist is that we don't know the future but we know how theorical QCs are able to break currently used cryptography
Under the constraints of us correctly modelling the math of QC. Isn't it possible that we have gaps between our models of QC and how it works in reality that could make it such that these algorithms can't actually offer any speedup over classical approaches in the real world? Or similarly, even if they do work, maybe it's just impossible to build a computer with sufficiently many qubits to outperform classical approaches. Anyway, massive gap between theory and practice with no indication we're bridging it in meaningful ways.
> Under the constraints of us correctly modelling the math of QC.
You're right.
Those questioning are legit, and we don't know.
It could even turn that the post quantum procedures we chose in our times produces messages quickly breakable by classical computers. And that eventually one day, someone discovers it while trying to solve another problem and decides to warn everyone the right way (yay).
In such unpropitious (but, we still don't know) scenario, how cute we'll be if all that attempt for protecting us from the future were sincere.
> Isn't it possible that we have gaps between our models of QC and how it works in reality that could make it such that these algorithms can't actually offer any speedup over classical approaches in the real world?
If BQP=BPP or if BQP did not accurately model a quantum computer, i think that would be a much more interesting result than an actual working quantum computer. It would be world shattering.
Or BQP is a purely theoretical construct with no real-world counterpart. No world shattering result necessarily.
There’s plenty of math that exists purely in the virtual real with no connection to physical reality. Math is a language to describe any possible universe. That doesn’t mean anything we say in it necessarily applies to our universe.
VLAN is not intended to be used like that. You want to rely on a trusted firewall you own, with separate interfaces and appropriate firewalling rules. This can provide an isolation between networks.
Behind this, any pirated server could decide to send VLAN tagged packets that may go trough the firewall if the rules are bad, or read any of them arriving to it.
VLAN's are useful if you want to "tag" packets with ID's going trough specific interfaces for segmentation purposes. The tag is applied from the interface standpoint, so this gives a virtual segmentation between ports of machines you are supposed to always control, like between a port on your router and ports on a managed switch.
In this case VLAN's are configured on the router's interface and the switch interfaces, but the exposed server is not aware about it, and can't change it, so you can know the ID is right.
This is often believed this is required to isolate networks, this is wrong, you just need to have separate interfaces.
Indeed, it is a good initiative. And that may be useful.
Keep in mind that there's many people self-hosting and exposing services to WAN that ends as spamboxes or worse from misconfigured bits.
The thing is non-techy people would setup such thing and get it running, but have no technical way to maintain it. It's a flying plane in automatic mode with no competent pilot inside.
Totally agree. Better look for local associations that provides hosting services if you don't have any system administration knowledge. They'll help you more, and you'll waste less time and probably money, plus they may help you physically setting up your devices correctly with your services hosted on their servers.
I mean, yeah it's a minimal step by step guide that just feel to be the poster's own todo list... As there's many like that. To get some entry-point information this is great but this is far from being useful in practice.
Basically it hides everything useful to know behind a big script that the intended reader is not even supposed to understand.
I did not have seen any protection for what's come from WAN, not even basic logging, investigation nor debugging methodology. No real backup methodology as well and the guide seems to not take system upgrades very seriously by saying "oh, it could run so for decades, but if you want you can do system upgrades".
This is obviously false to any expert and a very risky approach. This is not how we are supposed to teach internet-connected services self-hosting.
Yah super, running apps made by trainees or websites that takes ages to even render, if not, filled with third party assets and trackers, as well as depending running whole cloud infrastructures just to enter a museum or to see a restaurant menu L O L.
I think you don't even realize how stupid it is.
PS: I did not ever gave 1 cent to Amazon, feel "free" to do so as well.
I think online ticketing systems are fine, and yeah they mostly require to run on a robust infrastructure. Knowing the trends, that certainly would depend on big-tech cloud infrastructure.
I don't care unless this become a mandatory de-facto standard to access public places.
Hopefully yet it is not, and people would reject that if that would become an obligation. But there's a chance that our children would not even know this is bare dumb cause it would be the norm.
Why should we accept a smartphone-dependent society ? Because it pleases you or because this is imposed by the top and you just accept it, then find all the other just being morons ? :)
Yes 90%+ including 94% of the homeless population have a cell phone. You are making the choice to be in the minority of people who choose to inconvenience yourself. The Amish have the courage of their convictions and never felt the need to ask the government to force their beliefs on other people.
However, having smartphones does not mean to go toward and accepting more and more situations where they do become mandatory to enter to public places.
As we expressed before in this topic, applications, websites and their back-ends depends themselves on lots of other things to be reliable. Not even considering security issues or privacy abuses that are reportedly common. This is not an individual problem, it's a society choice that does not seems to be advised.
I'm not against adding methods for accessing such places with some computer connected to a network just like smartphone, smart watches and stuff... If this can be useful, handy and neutral as tools should stay.
Still, I personally don't wish to find myself or anyone reduced, worse, denied by not wearing a specific smartphone (that would even maybe require to accept and sign many private third party conditions) for enjoying a direct interaction with "normal" people having a restaurant or a museum for example.
I would consider extreme to think that, because "everyone have a smartphone" then it should be normal to require that for everything. Implying (not blindly) accepting whole bunches of consequences (that most people seems to want to ignore because otherwise they would feel reduced or rejected) coming with.
Perhaps we don't see the same reality under the same prism and education. This is is not some point. It's just to say... What I sadly observe in general is a total lack of competence or understanding of the information technologies, actors and implications. And outside the fact it is another great source of pollution, they also represent a good opportunity for locking down people and tracking them from bad actors intentions.
So, I wish that it won't be misused or forced, particularly in situations were this wipes-out the freedom to do simple things that works fine, in any ways. Just what's in my mind if we would ask me my opinion.
One day or an other, your proprietary pocket tracker and his mandatory connectivity will fail. What if the device is broken (yah, go buy another) ? What if the upstream service don't work ? What if the GSM network is locally in maintenance ? Overall, why should we require obsolete-when-bought, extremely costly and polluting locked-down devices you don't even control to access public places ?
So why, any concrete response capable of holding up in practice ?
Not to discount the other issues, but apple wallet being offline is one of my favorite features and side-steps many of the issues related to connectivity of bandwidth issues when you're at a large event/venue.
It would be much better to have varied and robust options though.
What works for me, if I need to pay something: I use my credit card (contactless under 50, over I need to type a code) or some bills which both are in my physical wallet (protected against rfid, it just looks as a normal wallet).
I don't see any benefits adding third parties to the mix apart the fashion of "Oh yeah I can pay with my tracker watch".
"As such, as quantum technology advances, there is the potential for future quantum computers to have a significant impact on current cryptographic systems. Forecasting the future is difficult, but the general consensus is that such computers might arrive some time in the 2030s, or might not arrive until 2050 or later." quoted from:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pquip-pqc-engine...