A new by the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton on China鈥檚 steady push for quantum supremacy is making waves on Capitol Hill and in board rooms across the country.
This isn鈥檛 surprising. The report鈥檚 conclusions echo what we鈥檝e repeatedly been warning and writing about in this column, and why I founded the 华体会鈥檚 Quantum Alliance Initiative (QAI) nearly three years ago. With Booz Allen鈥檚 name attached to the warning label, the imperative to take seriously a future quantum threat from China now has additional cachet and reach.
Nonetheless, the report doesn鈥檛 just underscore the QAI thesis, that 鈥漷he anticipated cracking of encryption by quantum computers must be treated as current threat鈥� and that 鈥渕ost of quantum computing鈥檚 potential lies more than a decade in the future鈥攂ut risk management must start now.鈥� It also produces some new insights that make for scary and sobering reading.
At the same time, there鈥檚 some good news for the quantum skeptic or the What Me Worry About Quantum? crowd. Despite the huge amount of money and resources China has poured into the quantum effort (a $11 billion research facility in Anhui province, plus Ali Baba鈥檚 $ 15 billion commitment); and the clear focus on quantum supremacy as a national priority, China is no further along than anyone else in creating the large-scale quantum computer that will be capable of cracking open existing public encryption systems. BAH鈥檚 estimates of when to expect that breakthrough hover around 2030 and 2033鈥攏o great surprise鈥攁lthough at least one expert touts it coming as early as the late 2020鈥檚. Others see nothing on the horizon until 2040.
But the report鈥檚 authors also acknowledge that, as with all technologies, quantum science doesn鈥檛 advance in a straight predictable line. 鈥淐hanges in quantum computers will likely appear dramatically rather than as some smooth evolution鈥攃reating substantial exposure to strategic surprise as a major source of risk.鈥� That includes the real possibility of a breakthrough that confounds the experts and makes us all accelerate our own time-lines for becoming quantum secure.
BAH has some interesting insights into the quantum threat that exists right now, and what China is planning to do with it.
That issue is data harvesting, or what we might the 鈥渟teal now, decrypt later鈥� strategy. In China鈥檚 case, that threat manifests itself by stealing data to feed a concerted move toward quantum simulation in which classical and quantum computers work together on a specific problem, e.g. decryption, with the classical computers managing the big data sets and quantum computer executing the hardest part of the exercise. China has set 2025 as its deadline for quantum simulators that can outperform classical computers, which means Beijing will have 鈥渁 growing interest in stealing data to feed quantum simulations.鈥�
The threat, of course, doesn鈥檛 stop there. The second phase is stealing encrypted data with the goal of decrypting when the technology is finally ready. This is because any data stolen today that doesn鈥檛 have quantum-resistant encryption will 鈥渂e eventually accessible to an adversary with a large-scale quantum computer.鈥� This constitutes a breakthrough of 鈥渦nfathomably immense鈥� value, 鈥渁llowing the decryption of current and historical data collected over years, held in anticipation of this capability.鈥�
Booz Allen concludes 鈥淐hinese actors may soon increasingly target encrypted data with intelligence [value] in anticipation of future quantum decryption capabilities.鈥� That doesn鈥檛 mean government secrets like intelligence community sources and methods, weapons systems and specifications, and classified and sensitive data of all kinds. It includes corporate secrets like intellectual property and business models and privileged client information鈥攅verything an upstart rival Chinese firm needs to become a market colossus overnight after decrypting the competition鈥檚 crown jewels. For all these reasons, China鈥檚 data harvesting 鈥渃reates immediate security risk for classified and sensitive data of long-term value.鈥�
Conclusion? 鈥淭he anticipated cracking of encryption by quantum computers must be treated as a current threat.鈥� As we鈥檝e been arguing all along at QAI, this is because the timeline to protect data and networks from quantum intrusion will be almost as long. The reports notes, for example, upgrading system to the National Institute of Standards and Technology鈥檚 long-awaited standards for quantum-resistant algorithms 鈥渨ill have a very long timeline鈥� that will 鈥渘ecessitate highly disruptive changes to communications protocols, schemes, and infrastructure over at least a decade鈥� (my emphasis).
Fortunately, as we鈥檝e illustrated with our Executive Guides to quantum technology, companies already exist in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Europe that already offer solutions that are quantum-resistant and/or quantum-based, which can protect against present as well as future quantum cyber threats.
All this reinforces the point that attention to quantum readiness and quantum security must become a national priority, not just for government but for companies and institutions that don鈥檛 want to be caught with their data and networks burning down, because they ignored an earlier fire alarm.
Read in