this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
105 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

84299 readers
3204 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
105
Quantum Computers Are Not A Threat To 128-bit Symmetric Keys (words.filippo.io)
submitted 1 week ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AES-128 is safe against quantum computers. SHA-256 is safe against quantum computers. No symmetric key sizes have to change as part of the post-quantum transition. This is a near-consensus opinion amongst experts and standardization bodies and it needs to propagate to the rest of the IT community. The rest of this article backs up this claim both technically and with references to relevant authorities.

Original article: https://words.filippo.io/128-bits/

TL;DR: https://hackaday.com/2026/04/25/quantum-computers-are-not-a-threat-to-128-bit-symmetric-keys/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tombo@nord.pub 16 points 6 days ago (8 children)

this is good news if true

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 6 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Good for security. What does this mean for quantum computing, though? Does it mean that it’s not as powerful as we thought it would have been?

[–] tombo@nord.pub 2 points 6 days ago

I think it means that there was probably some misunderstandings of how a qbit would do calculations or execute code.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)