Palo Alto CEO tips nation-states to weaponize quantum computing by 2029

Palo Alto Networks CEO Nikesh Arora has suggested hostile nation-states will possess quantum computers in 2029, or even a little earlier, at which point most security appliances will need to be replaced. He would say that, of course, given that Palo Alto Networks’ shareholders would like nothing more than a quantum-FUD- …

[dinsdale54]

Man who sells security equipment tells you that all your security equipment will need replacing in three years. News at Ten!

There's currently no evidence QC will ever be a real thing, it's the new fusion. This bozo is just conjuring up the next bogey man to try and keep the coffers full.

[ParlezVousFranglais]

But your average PHB will lap it up nonetheless...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the C suite

AI AND Quantum? Wow.

Get AI AND Quantum

Profir²

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: From the C suite

Unfortunately, the uncertainty principle means we can know when AI is actually going to be useful or when Quantum will be viable, but not both.

[ParlezVousFranglais]

Re: From the C suite

Ah - so therefore the REAL money is actually in getting the AI to design Heisenberg Compensators for QC?...

[vtcodger]

Is 2029 a Realistic Date?

As I understand it Quantum computing's greatest achievement to date has been factoring 21 into 3*7. See Extrapolating Quantum Factoring and that was in 2012. Apparently that was a substantial step forward from factoring 15 in 2001. But they cut a few corners to do it.

The point isn't that Quantum Computing isn't a potential future security issue. Probably it is. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to expect useful/dangerous Quantum Computing based products any time soon.

BTW -- Quantum Computing clearly is not the same thing as Quantum Annealing (DWave) which MIGHT actually be useful for a few tasks today. But not for cracking cryptography apparently.

[ParlezVousFranglais]

Re: Is 2029 a Realistic Date?

For anyone like me (QC "dummies" with a passing interest):

https://algassert.com/post/2500

seems that 15 is still the highest on purely a QC - has an interesting (and to me quite surprising) comparison on the potential additional complexity of factoring 21 over factoring 15

Also plenty of side notes and reference URL's for further "light bedtime reading" on the topic...

[vtcodger]

Re: Is 2029 a Realistic Date?

@ParlezVousFranglais: Thanks. I found the https://algassert.com/post/2500 article to be fascinating. My take aways.

1. 15 happens to be an exceptionally easy number for QCs to factor.

2. The claimed factoring of 21 is much, much harder than factoring 15 and could only be done because they already knew the answer.

3. If you're looking to make a financial killing, Penney Canadian Mining Stocks are likely a better bet than betting on a QC company.

I recall reading and much enjoying Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer, an Abacus, and a Dog some time ago. I think I'll go check some of the other links in the article and see if there are any I can understand.

[David Pearce]

Assuming quantum computing actually happens, is anyone really sure how to mitigate it yet?

[Ian Johnston]

"Computer, if you don't open that exit hatch pretty damn pronto, I shall go straight to your major data banks with a very large axe and give you a reprogramming you will never forget. Capisco?"

[David Hicklin]

20+ years

Quantum computing is like Fusion power - always 20+ years away

[Omnipresent]

There is no safety

The internet is the definition of unsafe. Computers are how they get to you.

Turn off your computer, and get offline, if you want your independence back.