Samuel Tseitkin [00:00:00]:
Are some things that you would want to use quantum computers where they’re much faster. Classical computers will still have their role. They aren’t going to be fully replaced, but it does give us some algorithms that are actually now feasible that weren’t feasible otherwise.

KB [00:00:30]:
Joining me today is Samuel Tseitkin, founder from ExeQuantum. And today, we’re discussing the golden age of cybersecurity, the quantum era. So, Sam, thanks for joining and welcome.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:00:46]:
Thank you for having me.

KB [00:00:47]:
Okay. So I wanna start real, real basic. Now I’ve touched on quantum on the show before, but not in any sort of fidelity that you’re gonna go into today. So let’s just start there. What is Quantum?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:01:01]:
Sure thing. So basically, if you really wanna get into the most high level description of a quantum. It’s basically the very small world, you can say. So small that the laws of physics themselves change. Gravity no longer takes effect. It cannot really be truly observed because it’s smaller than the particles of light. And it’s just a whole, basically a whole new world of physics that is completely different to ours. And we have no idea yet why, essentially.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:01:33]:
This is a kind of a crazy world where everything acts differently, I’ve mentioned. Like for example, a particle, let’s say a quantum particle for simplicity, would be at all positions at all potential outcomes for that particle. So it will be like, say, you know, going right, going left at the same time until it gets what’s called observed. Meaning like, basically we look at it, not in the literal sense, because we can’t look at it, but as in observe it physically. While we’re still trying to learn how it works, we already can utilize it, like a lot of other things. Like you don’t need to understand a computer to use it. So thankfully we can create computers using quantum physics somewhat. Basically, when I described how a particle can be all outcomes at once, imagine this being applied to a computer circuit.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:02:24]:
So what are some potential outcomes for computer circuits? It would be zero and one, as we all know, the binary circuits. Now, because quantum particles are all outcomes at the same time until they get observed, it means that quantum circuit, or as we call it, qubits, quantum bits, is one and zero at the same time or and everything in between until it gets observed. And then once it gets observed, it collapses into one or zero or something in between by chance, essentially. And without going too much into it, basically what it does, because it acts differently to classical bits, it gives us a whole new amount of opportunities, amount of new types of algorithms that we won’t be able to run otherwise. So it’s not like quantum computers are omnipotent. And there are some things where classical computer still shines. A good example I like to use is for example, who would you trust more to, to, tell you what’s five times five, charge GPT or a calculator? Most people would say calculator. So same with quantum computers and classical computers.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:03:30]:
There are some things that you would want to use quantum computers where they’re much faster. Classical computers will still have their role. They’re not going to be fully replaced. But it does give us some things, some algorithms that are actually now feasible, that weren’t feasible otherwise. So that’s basically it before we go into the impact on cybersecurity. I think that’s a good, high level explanation.

KB [00:03:54]:
Okay. So there’s a couple of things in there that I really want to get into. You said the zero ones, but at the same time, and then in between, like what does in between look like?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:04:03]:
Basically the way that quantum computers work, the way the cubits work is essentially chance. If it’s one, for example, if the circuit is one, there is a % chance that it is one. If the circuit is at zero, there is a % it’s at zero. So something in between is there is a 40% chance that it’s 160% chance that it’s zero. Or 75% chance that it’s 125% chance that it’s zero. So it’s not like literally something in between, but statistically, as I mentioned, it’s gonna, it’s a very high oversimplification of the, of the actual workings of it. So essentially, like, you know, when we, we observe it, there is a chance of it collapsing into the states between one and zero, if that makes sense.

KB [00:04:55]:
But that doesn’t obviously work in like a more of a binary sort of traditional classical sort of computing, right? Like one or zero.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:05:02]:
Yes. So with classical computers, there is a % chance it will be one or a % chance that it will be zero. And if there’s a % chance that it will be one, then we know that there’s a zero chance percent it will be zero.

KB [00:05:13]:
Yeah. Okay. Wow. Alright. So alright. So then on that note, so you mentioned before there’s still gonna be, like, a need for, like, classical computing. So, like, give me an example of, like, where we’d need to leverage classical computing over sort of quantum computing, for example.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:05:30]:
It’s really hard to tell at this time. We don’t know exactly what algorithms quantum computers will never have. We know that, for example, they have some algorithms that are much more useful than a classical computers, but we have barely scratched the surface of their potential. So we don’t know exactly what algorithms will pop up that will be able to replace classical algorithms. However, there are plenty of areas where classical while quantum computers might be able to be utilized, classical computers will just be a much better choice because it’s much easier to manufacture and stabilize. As I mentioned, coming back to the AI example, that’s another emerging technology. You could theoretically just go to ChargeGPT and ask it, what’s 50 times 150 plus 29 or something. ChargeGPT might be able to answer you that, but I would trust a classical calculator a lot more.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:06:22]:
And it’s not because and then like, you know, when it comes to how easy it is to manufacture a calculator versus ChargeGPT, you’d think it would make some more sense than in that case to use a calculator. So essentially classical computers will still be useful for a lot of functions. You just have to vote for some algorithms. We don’t know yet exactly how many. Quantum computers are significantly more useful. So they might be more useful for say, certain professions, certain companies, like government organizations. You know, not everyone needs a supercomputer, for example. So not everyone would need a quantum computer.

KB [00:06:58]:
So you mentioned before that we, like, as an industry, are still figuring out, like, what we know. So then what what is the current state of affairs? Like, what do we kinda know at the moment? And then would you classify quantum in a similar bucket to, like, AI, for example? Because there’s still, like, lots of questions around that. Obviously, AI has been around for probably a bit longer, and there’s a bit more functionality around it, and there’s a bit more ubiquity around it. But then what what do people at yourself actually know about quantum in terms of, like, the the knowledge generally speaking out there?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:07:29]:
Okay. So we do know that, for example, there are some algorithms that quantum computers are like immensely better than a classical computer. And when I say immensely, I mean, you know, numbers that are hard to grasp, like billions of times better than classical computers. Like for example, with optimization problems, that seems to be where quantum computers really shine. Or for example, unluckily, it’s extremely good at breaking down prime numbers, like prime factors, calculating the prime factors of a number, which technically that’s what our cryptographic system, like, that it is currently utilized for almost everything, relies on. Like, a classical computer would take literally billions of years to calculate the prime factors of the massive numbers that they utilize for cryptography. But quantum computers will take maybe a few hours at most, like when they reach the scalable state that we’re referring to. We also know that there are a lot of challenges to get to that state, mainly around qubit stability.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:08:36]:
Like in terms of numbers, we are doing all right. I think that IBM already has a couple of thousands of qubits. But qubits are extremely hard to keep stable. So for example, we talked about the chances between zero and one. It’s hard to keep them that way. It’s hard to actually maintain their data and not lose it. Also, there is a lot of noise. So when trying to decipher the data that the qubits are conveying, you can get a lot of errors in the middle that kind of skew the results.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:09:04]:
And those are challenges that a lot of companies are trying various degrees to various different approaches to fix. Like, for example, Microsoft recently published a paper, which is now pretty controversial, but I will not be getting into that. They claim that they use the topological approach to create quantum computers that are available in room temperature. I think IBM utilized near zero temperatures to maintain the stability of the qubits, but there is still a lot of trouble in that area. So we know that we are still relatively far. We don’t know exactly how far from having a scalable quantum computer. But there are already like massive uses for algorithms around biology, logistics, health, and, of course, cryptography.

KB [00:09:54]:
Let’s look at Microsoft, for example. So when, you know, Microsoft or, like, you know, even IBM put out computers originally speaking, they weren’t sort of meant for, like, personal computers. But obviously now we’re at that point where everyone’s got a laptop computer, etcetera. Right? Did you think quantum will follow down that path if we look at sort of the previous pedigree, or what do you think on that front?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:10:12]:
I think I kind of didn’t really dive into your parallel with AI, and I think that kind of ties nicely into this as well. It’s really hard to tell, as I mentioned. Quantum computers are kind of, they’re very different to AI and classical computers in terms of how you maintain their state, etcetera. But looking at parallels that are visible, like for example, the facts that AI just ten years ago wasn’t anywhere. Like it was just a niche usage for essentially technical people for specific use cases and suddenly it blew up and now it’s being used by everyone. While it’s the same, the same was the case with classic computers. And it always was the case that it started off as like very niche usage and required to be like very big and require a lot of energy. And then it became smaller and became somewhat available to people.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:11:01]:
Like, for example, AI technically is still not available to a lot of people. You’ve got to use a cloud service that can provide those servers who will hold the data. But slowly that’s becoming decentralized as well. And I think already some devices hold local AI instance. With quantum, there is a possibility there as well, I think. A lot of people would disagree with me. But just following the patterns, technically you can already buy a quantum random number generator from some companies. You can already access a quantum computer via cloud to say IBM or I think AWS and use an actual quantum computer.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:11:40]:
So yes, I personally think it’s only a matter of time before everyone has, basically a hybrid quantum classical and potentially AI devices that will not be as powerful. Like for example, I do think such the topological room temperature quantum computers are not as powerful as, near zero temperature, near absolute zero. But it’s still so, you know, it’s going to be useful for individuals while the big companies and governments will take the equivalent of a quantum supercomputer, if I’m making sense.

KB [00:12:13]:
Okay. This is really interesting. Okay. So going back to your hybrid approach and, like, you are right. Like, it’s too early to tell. Who knows? It could happen. But, no, I like your thinking. So going back to the hybrid approach, so I think you’ve sort of touched on it.

KB [00:12:24]:
So you’ve got your Microsoft, IBM and friends. Are they now making a play to to start to create these hybrid? Like, obviously, they’re they’re already dabbling in the the quantum arena exclusively, but this this hybrid sort of machines that you spoke about, are these vendors like Microsoft and friends making this play now that you’re seeing?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:12:43]:
I haven’t heard anything about it. It’s a very big I heard well, I heard some things being touched about it, like people mentioning it and how it can be potentially useful. I haven’t heard like a significant effort to do that. And I reckon it’s because it’s just a bit too early to leak into that because we need quantum to become viable first. But I think that it’s going to be potentially also the key on how to solve some of the issues with quantum, such as the maintenance of data. Like a classical computer data is significantly more stable. So we could I think there are already applications of running the algorithm in quantum, getting the results and quickly storing it in a classical computer so that we don’t lose our data. So I can they already use it for it.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:13:30]:
So I see no reason why there might be some low key, low profile work around it as well. Okay.

KB [00:13:35]:
So just to touch on this a little bit more. So I interviewed a guy, NetApp Matt Watts. So he wrote a book around the fourth wave and he sort of spoke around because he’s been in the industry so long around these waves of different technologies. So he spoke about, like, modular technologies, virtualization, and cloud computing. And then obviously, now that’s all we meant, you know, intelligent data infrastructure. And then I asked him, like, what do you think the fifth wave is? And we sort of touched on quantum. This is a bit of a a hard question, but I’m just trying to get a bit of a broader from you, Sam, around When new technology comes out, there’s always gonna be the naysayers. There’s this, there’s that.

KB [00:14:09]:
It’s not gonna work. Like, even with cloud computing, for example, even when the Internet started up, people were like, no, it’s not gonna be a thing. And and and it and it is. Right? So how long would you sort of anticipate based on what you do every day, will it take for people to start to really get across this? Because even if you look at AI, like, it was been around for ages. But in terms of the uptake of the everyday person, that was in late twenty twenty two. And, like, we’re eighteen months or so into this, you know, AI being so ubiquitous and, like you said, everyone using it. What are your thoughts then around predictions for, like, the quantum uptake? Quantum computing more specifically.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:14:47]:
Yeah. If I may, the the naysayers, so to speak, to skeptics, are starting to grind my gears a bit, so to speak. Of course, skepticism is healthy. We shouldn’t always just say, oh, everything like, there is also, of course, the other extreme where people are starting to say how, you know, AGI is just a year away and quantum computers will break our encryption tomorrow and there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. But at the same time, I think it’s borderline dangerous approach sometimes when people just say, no, it’s not going to happen. And therefore, because of it, we are being called very unprepared. Like for example, the internet has done, made quite the impact. Now we should go, for example, to social media.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:15:27]:
We’re seeing quite the adverse effect on society because we’re just not prepared for it whatsoever. Now AI, same here. We haven’t really prepared for it. So it’s already starting to affect the workforce and other areas of industry in ways that we haven’t seen coming, such as like deep fakes and misinformation, etcetera. And because we were just so unprepared for it, the adverse effects are going to be magnified, like on the workforce, on misinformation, on everything. However, with quantum, it’s actually going to be next level in terms of the danger. Because here we’re talking about all our encryption systems, which are basically the only reason that, you know, emails, banking, etcetera, can exist, just being broken down. Now there are a lot of big players who are already acting on it.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:16:18]:
You know, they’re the big tech giants, but, and you know, really big kudos to them. But I have seen a lot of people who handle a lot of data and infrastructure who just kinda, you know, takes a wait and see approach. They’re like, you know, Ah, well, we we don’t know if it will happen. I don’t have to act either until my government, if the government says I have to, or I get hacked, which is way too late. Like if you add, say, until a month before Q day, then all the data of your data has probably been harvested for later decryption. And I also heard people say like, oh, well, who’s going to harvest my data? No one with a quantum computer is going to harvest my data. But the truth is somebody who harvests your data doesn’t need a quantum computer. As a lot of organizations and countries, malicious countries and organizations, who will possess a quantum computer will be happy to buy or sell their decryption services, if you will, to any hacker who just decides to harvest any data that they like, creating kind of like a black market of harvested data.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:17:19]:
So I think I went kind of on the tangent on how dangerous the step of skepticism can become. In terms of when will people understand? Sadly, I feel like until we do, either we get punched in the face, we have some sort of Y2K. Well, hopefully the best case scenario is a Y2K scenario where we already got, everyone got protected from quantum decryption and all post quantum has been adopted before any real damage was made. And everyone is like, well, here is all around. What’s the big deal? What was the fuss? So I see two potential scenarios, either either a real punch in the face, which I hope doesn’t happen, which is, the biggest data leak in history or a Y2K scenario where it’s all around us suddenly and people don’t understand what was the big deal, at least until quantum AI comes to be and some other things.

KB [00:18:11]:
Okay. So going back to the NASAs, so the people that are saying like, oh, this won’t be a thing. Are these, like, people that are, like, ill informed people, like, everyday people? Because I mean, like, you know, when I’m doing interviews, like, I like to do a bit of reconnaissance out there, seeing what people are saying on all different types of social media platforms. People that have a security technology background, and just everyday people that really don’t. So it’s just good to get a bit of a gauge on where people are sitting on that front. So people are saying, oh, no. This won’t happen. Are these people that actually even know what quantum means? Or are these just people just hearing the word and then just sort of refuting it?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:18:43]:
Well, that’s the concerning part. I wasn’t talking mainly about the, you know, for lack of a better term, your average Joe, like the one who doesn’t handle the security of a company. It’s been head of cyber securities and Seizos that I’ve been having those conversations with. Of course, a lot of Seizos have been extremely receptive. A lot of CEOs have been extremely receptive and have had very fruitful discussions and collaborations. But there is still a concerning amount of CISOs, CTOs, and more who probably have more short term priorities, or at least they feel that they have more short term priorities. And sometimes even borderline veto the project. Like for example, the CEO says, I think we should look into it.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:19:31]:
And the CISO goes, Well, I don’t think we need to look into it yet. Maybe like, you know, let’s continue to monitor the situation, which again, a lot of voices are saying how the planning and the transition is going to be significantly longer than people think. It’s going to be a lot more complex because we’re talking about appending a lot of infrastructure and replacing it. Like I’m personally trying to make it easier, but there is no way to actually make it super easy and super seamless. So it is a bit concerning seeing that people who should be at the forefront, you know, I’m not sure if it’s controversial to say, but I think that there is some ego at play there as well. They don’t want to, they don’t like being caught not knowing something, not being the smartest guy in the room about something. And therefore they kind of get defensive and skeptical about it. Hopefully it will be, it will continue to improve.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:20:25]:
I’ve seen signs of improvement over time as, as you know, more governments are talking about it, more organisations are talking about it.

KB [00:20:31]:
So you mentioned before, Sam, we’ve, you know, how do you prepare? Like, we’ve got to get prepared, but like, how do you do that? I mean, if people don’t even understand it, like, how do you possibly get prepared for something like this? Or what are your sort of insights around that?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:20:43]:
That’s a really good question. I mean, everyone talks about, you know, adopt crypto agility, have a look, maybe write some documents on step by step process, but it’s still a very tricky process. It also depends on whether you rely on third parties or if you want to use a vendor or if you want to do it in house. And And if you do it in house, do you want to have a consultant or like outside expertise or do you want to build it inside as well? So I would not like for, for the sake of brevity, I will not break it down too much. But I guess, you know, the, I think that a good three step process I’ve been discussing with people is the discovery phase, the remediation phase, and the maintenance phase, which may lead to the cycle repeating. So further the discovery phase where you need to look into the tools you are using or the encryptions that you’re deploying. For example, if you use a third party, you need to really dig into them, ask their intentions about post quantum and, like check if they have any sort of roadmap or plans to, to make the migration. If they respond as vaguely as a lot of people do, maybe you can look into, switching to another provider who has mentioned that.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:22:00]:
Like for example, for TLS Flare has already adopted Post Quantum, but I know some providers who have not. And when I spoke to them, they say they don’t really have any plans to do it. If, for example, you want to do it in house, you need to look into the algorithms that are being used for encryption. Like, do you have any places where you use RSA or elliptic curve? Basically look into the asymmetric encryption that you are being, that you’re deploying and check if what type of encryption is utilizing. You know, kind of shortening the process. But, basically from there, you’d go into the remediation phase. As I mentioned, with the third party tools, you might want to switch to the ones that have already either planning to like have a good date on when they’ll do it. Not like, oh, we’ll do it when the time comes.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:22:47]:
Or if you have it in house, look into the newer algorithms that have been selected by NIST and, or a Nissan or a few other organizations that are deemed to be quantum secure for now. However, keep in mind that there are, there are kind of newer, newer algorithms. So people need to prepare to also have to make it again, migration again. That’s the kind of the, where the crypto agility term comes from because lattice based is already showing some signs of weakness, for example. So people are already talking about migration to call based cryptography, barely a year into the lattice based cryptography standardization. A lot of people find it daunting. So for them, you know, I would recommend potentially looking into hiring a vendor or a contractor who has specialty in that. If you don’t want to spend too many resources on doing it yourself.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:23:43]:
Otherwise, feel free to just hire a cryptographer or use the other third party tools. After that, there is a maintenance phase, which is, as I mentioned, continue to monitor news like about how the status of the algorithms that you have adopted and seeing if they’re broken into, because that happens a lot. And I guess from there, hope for the best.

KB [00:24:03]:
Hope for the best. Okay. Fair enough. So okay. So then just zooming out for a moment. What do you think in your experience, people just don’t get about quantum other than the whole thing, but was there any sort of more nuanced pieces that you can sort of talk through?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:24:16]:
Sure. So this kind of touches on AI as well and potentially the Internet. I don’t think I was old enough in the internet age to understand, to see the parallels, but basically people have trouble understanding exponential growth. So if we’re coming back to AI, for example, there have been a long period where people have been saying that AI is very far away from being able to actually like even be a chatbot. And I remember trying the chatbot back in like 2018, they were not exactly optimized. And then suddenly there is a boom. And now every day there is like a new massive breakthrough with AIs that opens new doors for a lot of applications. And this therefore makes it hard for us to understand both how fast and how slow it progress it’s progressing.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:25:08]:
We don’t know how fast now AI will get to AGI because we don’t know how long we have until AGI. We just know that it’s advancing faster and faster towards it. Same with quantum. There have been absolutely it was always fifteen years away. People have always assumed it’s going to be either fifteen years away or three generations away. And now the estimation, for example, for Q Day has been pushed forward quite a bit. I think at first it was 02/1945, and then it was 2035. And now a lot of people put it at 02/1930.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:25:39]:
Some people even put, Gartner, for example, puts it at 2029. And it might be even before that. Therefore we don’t, we can’t really delay things. We shouldn’t like panic and say it’s going to happen tomorrow. But at the same time, I don’t think I personally understand exponential growth and I don’t think anybody else really does. So you need to really prepare that there is an actual possibility that it’s not just in that quantum computers will come, not in fifteen years, but in five years.

KB [00:26:07]:
So do you think people are panicked though? I mean, based on what you’re saying before about certain sizes are like, oh, no, I can’t even think about that. They got enough to do. So maybe there’s a bit of fear, overwhelm, that sort of feeling sinks in. But going back to the panic, do you think people are panic station now, or what do you think is going on out there?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:26:23]:
There is a mixed reaction, I think. But, yes, there is there is, an upcoming panic. As I mentioned with the exponential growth, there was nothing about it. And suddenly, basically around late twenty twenty four, there had been an explosion of news of breakthroughs with quantum guidelines and regulations passing all around the world. Suddenly there’s a lot of noise about it. People were not prepared for it. Therefore, like you mentioned, some panic and therefore go into kind of denial. Some panic and just get daunted.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:26:54]:
They don’t know what to do from there. And definitely important to be calculated and prioritize it. But there’s a lot of resources available as well for people who want to take, say a step back and kind of start the steps one by one. There are also a lot of vendors out there who are willing to help out just to maybe you can just start out if it’s a self insertion, you know, there’s a lot of vendors out there who are willing to help out and provide services or assistance or consulting that will make it significantly more feasible for companies who have no idea what they’re doing. So I do think it’s, it’s kind of a mix. I mean, not, not humans have all kind of their views about it, but I think it’s definitely important not to panic while at the same time, not be overly skeptical, if that makes sense.

KB [00:27:40]:
So then how does Quantum and security sort of talk to another, correlate, work together, wrap around? Walk me through that. And what does that look like in your eyes?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:27:51]:
Basically, I’ve mentioned with Quantum, we kind of got unlucky That the one of the first quantum algorithms that came to be is SMAC the algorithm that can break our encryption system. So that’s the first result. That’s the first effect of quantum on cybersecurity. But I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. I mean, every technology have a good side and a bad side. And that is kind of the bad side effects that we need to look when, when quantum is coming. However, at the same time, quantum is offering a very strong boost to security. Like for example, we can already use a quantum random number generator to create significantly stronger keys than what is being utilized by most people now, which makes it significantly harder for say differential attacks by AI to break symmetric keys.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:28:41]:
There are also some smaller scale application of quantum key distribution, which is a theoretically unhackable utilization of quantum to create a secure channel. So theoretically speaking, it’s possible that quantum will also be the end of hacking, at least in some, in some areas, in some applications. So we need to kind of look at it as kind of a new horseman, if you will. I think that D Wave, for example, recently came out with a quantum based blockchain, which is significantly more secure and fast than classical blockchain. So there is that, for example. It can also power AI, make it significantly stronger, which might also amplify the adverse effects of AI. But if we are prepared, then we’ll be able to just mainly sow the benefits. And same with security.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:29:31]:
There is a lot of adverse effects. Sure. But if we are prepared, if we now do the proper steps, I think we’re also facing a golden era of, cybersecurity with quantum being actually amplifying security rather than hurting it.

KB [00:29:46]:
Okay. So going back to your comment before, you said by leveraging and using, you know, quantum computing would eradicate, like, hacking, for example, right, because of the encryption that it does. So if companies, businesses, etcetera, aren’t leveraging quantum computing, and I correct me if I’m wrong, that means they’re still going to be vulnerable, susceptible. But if they are, you’re saying that we’re not going to have the problems that we’re facing in today’s climate?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:30:12]:
So I’ve mentioned, like, QKD is theoretically unhackable, utilizing quantum physics to transfer the keys. So remember when I mentioned how qubits collapsed when collapsed when they get observed? Basically, that’s what we do with the key. We create the quantum key and the key collapses if it gets observed. So we send that key to the other party, and if it gets observed on the way, it collapses and no longer works. So it’s essentially hacking key distribution.

KB [00:30:40]:
And then it becomes absolved then. Is that correct?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:30:42]:
Yes, exactly. The key got absolved and therefore it’s no longer is usable. So the other party knows that someone was listening in and has to restart the process. There might be some ways to beat that process. I mean, hacking evolves, evolves just the same way that security does. But yes, it would be very useful for low level applications such as underwater cables that are using or satellites that they use for today, internet. I think China and Russia claim that they collaborated together to create a secure satellite communication. Yeah.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:31:15]:
So it’s gonna, the thing is a lot of companies will not need to utilize quantum computers. It will be their internet provider who does. So if say the tower that communicates to their phone, who, which might have a mini QKD module to create a communication, like theoretically speaking, with the tower that is unhackable. So it won’t necessarily be something that companies have to do, but even companies themselves can already, if they won’t have a quantum computer, if like, QKD modules won’t become widely available, they can still adopt post quantum cryptography, which is technically what’s the roadmap that everyone is talking about implies will happen. Everyone will adopt post quantum cryptography because it’s a lot more accessible. And then some use cases will be adopting QKD, quantum key distribution.

KB [00:32:04]:
So then on that note, are telco and friends adopting this or where’s their sort of head at then?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:32:11]:
We can’t adopt QKD quite yet at scale. There are some trials happening. I think some very, very, high profile telco companies around the world are trialing it out, mainly in Southeast Asia, China, Europe. Although I think both Europe and America are more focusing on the post quantum cryptography. It’s kind of like, you know, China has their approach, so we have mine, ours, but it’s slowly developing. I think at the moment there is a very high limitation of the distance that the key can be sent through before it basically dissolves. So there are some challenges to conquer that before adoption can actually start. But they do know some telco companies.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:32:51]:
I’m not going to say names in case I get it wrong, are trialing it out.

KB [00:32:54]:
Okay. So just to connect the dots a bit more, hypothetically, telco adopts this technology, which then permeates through people leveraging the internet. Therefore, if you got some cybercriminal on the other side of the world, they need the Internet to be able to hack x company, business, etcetera. But then that becomes eradicated because the quantum technology has been adopted from is embedded in even the telco ISP sort of level.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:33:22]:
Yes. That’s that’s the best case scenario. That’s the Internet. The quantum Internet, as people say, that’s kind of one of the projects, would be unhackable.

KB [00:33:31]:
So then what happens to other vendors? Do they just become obsolete or what’s going on

Samuel Tseitkin [00:33:35]:
there? So they can scale it up of quantum cryptography, but that’s a good point that you brought that sadly this type of technology will only be available to the bigger ones and the rest are going to be significantly falling behind in terms of that. They can potentially offer other technologies that are more accessible, like PQC or quantum random number generators. But technically speaking, it’s like how already big companies have, you know, super computers and large servers that give them the advantage of a smaller businesses. I’m sure that there are some innovative solutions or pricing options that smaller telcos might be able to innovate with to grab more market share. At least that’s the hope.

KB [00:34:17]:
So Sam, given everything that we sort of discussed today, where do you think we sort of go from here? Like, I know there’s a lot of still questions, unknowns. It’s not expecting you to sort of have all the answers. Is this more so just getting a bit of a bit of a view from yourself who’s doing this day to day. You’ve obviously got experience in working in it. But what what do you think we can expect moving forward?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:34:35]:
In what regard, like, in terms of developments?

KB [00:34:38]:
Is adoption to quantum? Is, you know, is this is this gonna be a real thing? Because I and I and I caveat that with saying, because it looked like Web three example that that was, like, crazy topic for a while, and I mean, I don’t really hear much of that at all. So what do you I don’t know. Wherever your mind goes, because, again, it’s still one of those topics that’s not a lot of information about it. Not a lot of people have a lot of experience, and not a lot of people even know it exists or what it means. Wherever your mind takes you, I’m just really curious to hear your thoughts.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:35:07]:
So in terms of blockchain and Web3, for example, the use cases were significantly less clear, but like, I think AI would be a better example where the craziness is a bit more warranted while Web3 and blockchain, like there’s a lot of work to be done in Web3 three point zero and blockchain. However, with quantum computers, I think sadly there is absolutely well, sadly or fortunately, depends who you’re talking to, there is absolutely no question that this will be happening. There is way too much preparation and attention from governments all around the world to say otherwise. And for example, recent breakthrough like China, this Chinese university has managed to break a smaller version of the encryption today using a quantum computer. It’s a very, like much smaller versions than the one we have today. So there is still some time before it can actually break our encryption. But I think what this indicates is that the threat is no longer theoretical, because before that we just had the mathematical algorithm showing that it will be able to break encryption. But you know, the fact now we see practically speaking, it can, and it’s just a matter of scale.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:36:14]:
So maybe there is like a very small chance it will not happen, but the chances that it will happen, the way too high to wait and see, so to speak. So developments will continue there. However, cryptographic innovations will also continue. I mean, there are already a bunch of post quantum algorithms that are both coming and, and, have already been adopted or, or are ready for adoption that we think should be safe for much longer period of time. All encryption breaks. There were a bunch, a lot of encryption algorithms that ended up being broken. That is the arms race between hackers and cybersecurity experts, essentially. And this is just a bigger, bigger jump in terms of the stakes.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:36:58]:
But there is a lot of work being done to mitigate that and a lot of things that every single person, well, every single company can already employ to fix it. And not all of them require anyone to be a cryptographic.

KB [00:37:12]:
So, Sam, do you have any sort of final thoughts or closing comments you’d like to leave our audience with today?

Samuel Tseitkin [00:37:17]:
Yeah, sure. Just maybe wrap it up is, as, as mentioned in the talk, don’t be too skeptical. Don’t go into denial. This is going to happen. But at the same time, don’t panic. There are a lot of work being done to mitigate this, and there’s a lot of steps you can take to help yourself, whether you’re an individual or a company. There are a lot of resources to help you as well. So, yeah, just stay safe.

Samuel Tseitkin [00:37:39]:
Stay quantum.