logoalt Hacker News

bob1029yesterday at 7:37 PM5 repliesview on HN

I think quantum may be practically mitigated with aggressive key rotation in some cases. I've been prototyping an oauth machine-to-machine integration with a banking vendor that has our ecdsa keys rotate every 5 minutes. The keys are scheduled for deletion after 10 minutes. I see no reason I couldn't reduce this to something like 30s/60s. Our counterparty frequently scans our JWKS endpoint for revocation, so in practice an attacker with a quantum computer would need to be very fast if they wanted to break this particular wire agreement the scary way.


Replies

cortesoftyesterday at 8:27 PM

This wouldn’t help symmetric key encryption, which is what this is talking about. The keys you are rotating are asymmetric keys, which are only used to exchange symmetric keys for the actual encryption. In good setups, those symmetric keys are changed every session anyway.

If an attacker can break the symmetric encryption in a reasonable amount of time, they can capture the output and break it later.

In addition, how are you doing the key rotation? You have to have some way of authenticating with the rotation service, and what is to stop them from breaking THAT key, and getting their own new certificate? Or breaking the trusted root authority and giving themselves a key?

show 1 reply
FiloSottileyesterday at 10:31 PM

This will probably not help enough for asymmetric keys, and is unnecessary for symmetric keys. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28846 claims an attack runtime of a few minutes.

There are enough order-of-magnitude breakthroughs between today and scalable quantum error correction, that it makes no sense to try to to guess exactly the order of magnitude of the attacks that will be feasible.

Either you believe they won't happen, in which case you can keep using long-term ECDSA keys, or you believe they will happen, in which case they are likely to overshoot your rotation period.

bawolffyesterday at 9:16 PM

Going from breaking a key in a month to breaking a key in 1 second seems trivial compared to the effort of going from where we are now to being able to break a key in a month.

I dont know what the quantum future holds, but if quantum actually happens then i have low faith in your plan.

cedwsyesterday at 9:29 PM

Sounds like overkill. Quantum is a premature concern, but if there’s really that much paranoia why not use PQC like ML-KEM instead of rolling this strange thing?

show 1 reply
glitchcyesterday at 7:50 PM

You're clearly not using these keys in certificates, which would need to be signed by a root or interim CA on every update.

show 1 reply