Zoom adds 'post-quantum' encryption for video nattering

Zoom has rolled out what it claims is post-quantum end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for video conferencing, saying it will make it available for Phone and Rooms "soon." This, Zoom explains, makes it "the first UCaaS company to offer a post-quantum E2EE solution for video conferencing." That's unified communications as a service. …

[Paul Crawford]

Would this be the same Zoom that aims to harvest your conversations anyway?

https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/15/software_freedom_conservancy_zoom/

[David 132]

"We're implementing upgraded encryption. Now, we use ROT13 not once, but twice!"

[Anonymous Coward]

At my startup we use a homegrown algorithm where all data is XORed with a securely selected truly random number.

We even bought the expensive casino certified dice.

[Bebu]

securely selected truly random number.

All numbers are random. Its the selection that has to be truly random and then keeping your choice secret that makes it secure. :)

Although I sometimes wonder how often one time pads are reinvented.

DIY cryptography ranks with DIY brain surgery with the latter having the lesser damaging consequences for the world.

[spacecadet66]

It's 4, isn't it?

[Bebu]

rot13

I think you would have to be old enough to remember uunet news to see the humour or someone who paid attention in lect.1 cryptography 101. ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: rot13

I think David's very tongue-in-cheek point was that using ROT13 twice would result in plaintext commmunications.

[MiguelC]

Re: rot13

Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.

[Mike 137]

Overkill

"... resistant to being forcibly decrypted by some future super-powerful quantum computer that can undo today and yesterday's cryptography"

Best prefix that with "hypothetically". But even if it's valid, one can overdo "protection". For example, the copyright notice in a book I'm reading states " no part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form [...] without the permission in writing of the publisher". Strictly (by virtue of 'utilised in any form') that means I'd have to get written permission to read it (or even to catalogue it by title and author).

[druck]

Re: Overkill

Firstly quantum computers wont be cracking cryptograph, ever.

Secondly post quantum algorithms are not proven to be as secure as what we already have.

So in essence the whole announcement is just more snake oil.