31–40 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please remember that Dhole Moments is a furry blog before complaining about the furry art. It gets exhausting. Articles about cybersecurity gets 100% credibility when made by furries.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the folks beyond the HN crowd understood the extent to which the internet runs on queer / trans / catgirl / furry power?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please remember that Dhole Moments is a furry blog before complaining about the furry art. It gets exhausting. Articles about cybersecurity gets 100% credibility when made by furries.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the folks beyond the HN crowd understood the extent to which the internet runs on queer / trans / catgirl / furry power?
> Hybrid PQ+ECDH is a hedged bet against an algorithm break before Q-Day, but is utterly fucking useless over Pure PQ once Q-Day occurs. there is also the likelihood that Q-Day never arrives, either because something we don't know prevents the construction of sufficiently large quantum computers (eg. quantum gravity) or because the entire field was a scam. in that scenario abandoning ECC would have been pretty stupid…
Hi, I'm the author of this blog post! > there is also the likelihood that Q-Day never arrives, either because something we don't know prevents the construction of sufficiently large quantum computers (eg. quantum gravity) That is possible, but given the recent 2029 timelines from large Internet providers, I think it's prudent to prepare for Q-Day even if it never arrives. > or because the entire field was a scam. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I'm the author of this blog post! > there is also the likelihood that Q-Day never arrives, either because something we don't know prevents the construction of sufficiently large quantum computers (eg. quantum gravity) That is possible, but given the recent 2029 timelines from large Internet providers, I think it's prudent to prepare for Q-Day even if it never arrives. > or because the entire field was a scam. The…
Is there any downside to hybrid schemes other than using a bit more compute? If so than merely being able to hedge against unknown classical algorithmic flaws in the PQC candidates (which are not nearly as battle tested as ECC) seems like enough of a reason to do it.
The main thing I want to stress here is: I'm not anti-hybrid. Some people are. They tend to argue that less code / complexity is better, but you'll want to find one of them to ask directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your PQ safety blanket article https://soatok.blog/2026/04/13/hybrid-constructions-the-post... you make it pretty clear the reason you support hybrid is tactical, not cryptographic. Your wording ("Once Q-Day happens") strongly suggests Q-Day will happen, like, it’s so certain you don’t even need to state it explicitly, you can just assume it will. And your references to the PQ timeline give the impression that you…
> In your PQ safety blanket article https://soatok.blog/2026/04/13/hybrid-constructions-the-post... you make it pretty clear the reason you support hybrid is tactical, not cryptographic. What does it matter that my public arguments are tactical? Hybrid gets us to PQ faster, which makes progress on plugging up the HNDL risk. > Your wording ("Once Q-Day happens") strongly suggests Q-Day will happen, like, it’s so certa…
Do we have reason to suspect Google and Cloudflare have inside knowledge about quantum computers? To me this is more about the end of the NIST contest, and that one has no bearing on actual advances in quantum computing.
> The rest of the article is predicated on "these companies' risk assessment turns out to be correct".
Err, where did you wrote that? I can’t find it in your last two articles.
> You are extrapolating from […]
I exptrapolate mostly from this:
"I generally prefer hybrid KEMs–not out of any practical concern over ML-KEM’s security (or any other PQ KEMs, generally), but for reasons I’ll explain later in this blog post."
And this:
"Hybrid KEMs are an easier sell to people who are not cryptography experts than pure post-quantum KEMs for reasons that are mostly related to psychological safety than cryptographic safety."
https://soatok.blog/2026/04/13/hybrid-constructions-the-post...
Sorry if I’m misinterpreting, but as you can see I’m not the only one.
---
Anyway, good article on threat models.
Maybe I shouldn't, but I stopped taking the author seriously for their lack of nuance/extremely biased views favouring Signal in every article about E2EE applied to IM. But I do agree that threat modeling is just a support to formalize and document the variables in the threat equation. It doesn't say anything about whether the threat is reasonable, legitimate and grounded in reality, so it's only knocking the subject…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any downside to hybrid schemes other than using a bit more compute? If so than merely being able to hedge against unknown classical algorithmic flaws in the PQC candidates (which are not nearly as battle tested as ECC) seems like enough of a reason to do it.
Read https://soatok.blog/2026/04/13/hybrid-constructions-the-post... for a longer explanation. The main thing I want to stress here is: I'm not anti-hybrid. Some people are. They tend to argue that less code / complexity is better, but you'll want to find one of them to ask directly.
1. A mathematical attack against the PQC candidates would also break ECC (I have no ability to judge this claim).
2. Implementation bugs also exist in classical implementations.
#2 seems questionable to me unless you think the same implementation bugs will exist in Curve25519 and whatever PQC algorithm you are using. If the concern is side-channel attacks then that is irrelevant to a HNDL attack. But for most communications the cost of a HNDL attack being executed several years minimum from now is far lower than the cost of an implementation bug in ML-KEM breaking their security today. Whereas Curve25519 is very well tested in its standard implementations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In your PQ safety blanket article https://soatok.blog/2026/04/13/hybrid-constructions-the-post... you make it pretty clear the reason you support hybrid is tactical, not cryptographic. What does it matter that my public arguments are tactical? Hybrid gets us to PQ faster, which makes progress on plugging up the HNDL risk. > Your wording ("Once Q-Day happens") strongly suggests Q-Day will happen, like, it’s so certa…
> recent changes in direction from large Internet providers about quantum computing risks. Do we have reason to suspect Google and Cloudflare have inside knowledge about quantum computers? To me this is more about the end of the NIST contest, and that one has no bearing on actual advances in quantum computing. > The rest of the article is predicated on "these companies' risk assessment turns out to be correct". Err,…
Just now. In an HN comment.
I write in conversational English. I'm not always going to meticulously write everything like a formal argument might.
If you didn't understand that what I wrote later in a blog post was predicated on an assumption established in the intro, but would have if I wrote an explicit transitional sentence, that's useful feedback. But if you're treating an informal blog post like a court filing, you might be setting yourself up for disappointment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> recent changes in direction from large Internet providers about quantum computing risks. Do we have reason to suspect Google and Cloudflare have inside knowledge about quantum computers? To me this is more about the end of the NIST contest, and that one has no bearing on actual advances in quantum computing. > The rest of the article is predicated on "these companies' risk assessment turns out to be correct". Err,…
> Err, where did you wrote that? I can’t find it in your last two articles. Just now. In an HN comment. I write in conversational English. I'm not always going to meticulously write everything like a formal argument might. If you didn't understand that what I wrote later in a blog post was predicated on an assumption established in the intro, but would have if I wrote an explicit transitional sentence, that's useful…
Fair enough.
When I write an article (and to a lesser extent even a comment like here), I tend to agonise over every sentence. I’m guessing I’m kinda assuming others do the same. Except of course they don’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Err, where did you wrote that? I can’t find it in your last two articles. Just now. In an HN comment. I write in conversational English. I'm not always going to meticulously write everything like a formal argument might. If you didn't understand that what I wrote later in a blog post was predicated on an assumption established in the intro, but would have if I wrote an explicit transitional sentence, that's useful…
> I write in conversational English. Fair enough. When I write an article (and to a lesser extent even a comment like here), I tend to agonise over every sentence. I’m guessing I’m kinda assuming others do the same. Except of course they don’t.
My dayjob involves a lot of code review and protocol cryptanalysis, so I agonize quite a bit there.
My blog would be less fun if I maintained the same level of rigor. If that makes any sense. ^^;