Re: Why hasn't NTRU gained more penetration?
- From: unruh <unruh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:29:42 GMT
On 2011-08-13, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"amzoti" <amzoti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:a0badb7c-228c-4abb-
I was looking at a recent posting regarding updated NTRU code anddecided to look at the algorithm a bit closer.
I am not a big fan of the quantum ideologues claiming that quantum will end RSA and ECC, but was intrigued by the key size arguments.
Why has NTRU not made similar progress as ECC (that is a total guess on my side, but I just don't see the same market acceptance of NTRU)?
Is it a function of cost, complexity, patents or something else?
Patents and licensing costs is my guess. There are plenty of good,
secure and cost-free ciphers out there (both symmetric, asymmetric and
stream). In addition there isn't even 100% certainty that NTRU will be
secure from quantum algorithms. As far as we know it's safe AT THIS
MOMENT but once quantum computers arrive someone could develop a
quantum algorithm that makes solving NTRU trivial. Aside from that,
there aren't any quantum computers around and there's no telling how
long it will be before they become a reality and capable of breaking,
say, RSA or ECC. It could be 5 years, could be 50 years. It may prove
difficult to assemble 4096 entangled qbits. It may even be
Actually you will need a lot more than that. The algorithm itself
requires at least twice that many, plus error correction requires at
least 5-9 times as many for each level of error correction Thus one
would need something more than 1000000 qbits to break presently used
theoretically impossible or infeasible to entangle more than a certain.
number of qbits. We don't know yet.
- Prev by Date: kalashcrypto
- Next by Date: Re: Sorry for the uninteresting (AES) question.
- Previous by thread: Re: Why hasn't NTRU gained more penetration?
- Next by thread: kalashcrypto