Notices by Refurio Anachro (refurioanachro@toot.cat)

That doesn't sound like an argument against forward security. Of course, I have no idwa what you mean, so I'm not saying you're not right.

Just to be safe, forward security is the idea to do regular key exchanges (e.g. Diffie-Hellman), authenticated by the existing keypairs, so that even if their private keys get compromised in the future, the attacker still can't read old messages, whose keys never went over the wire, and have long been erased.

@aral

There seem to be only two good answers, 1 and 3. Kyber doesn't look good to me. Forward security seems important.

@aral

The nuclear argument is a straw man. The most significant problem ist that nuclear power is expensive, and it takes decades to build nuclear plants.

But there are also lots of other problems: Capitalism isn't reliable enough to keep nuclear power safe (or even running, see France) in the long run. It's still fossile, and the potential amount of fuel is just as limited as oil, and extraction is even more devastating.

They're centralized, which is why the energy mafia loves them. They aren't going to replace fossile anytime soon, so not much of a conflict of interest there.

@halikular @guenther @schratze @chartgerink @Meyerweb