Mediaboss Marketing

Five worthy reads is a regular column on five noteworthy items we discovered while researching trending and timeless topics. In this weeks edition, lets explore how quantum computing works and how it impacts cybersecurity.

Quantum physics describes the behavior of atoms, and fundamental particles like electrons and photons. A quantum computer operates by controlling the behavior of these particles. Bits are the smallest units of information in traditional computers. Quantum computers use qubits, which can also be set simultaneously to one of two values, providing superior computing power. To visualize the difference, think of flipping a coin versus spinning it. This unpredictability is called superposition, which can be measured by electron motion and direction. Unlike bits, qubits are manipulated using quantum mechanics for data transfers, and not for data storage.

The quantum entanglement is what makes it really exciting. A close connection of qubits reacts to a change in the partner qubits state instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are. The transmission of information from one location to another without physically transmitting it almost imitates teleportation. When you change a molecular property of one particle, it can impact the other across space and time and that creates the channel for teleportation. Which Einstein once called this behavior spukhafte Fernwirkung which translates as Spooky action at a distance.

The fascinating thing about quantum tech is its uncertainty. This could be helpful for creating private keys to encrypt messages, which makes it impossible for hackers to copy the keys perfectly. However, a quantum computer can introduce other concerns. It could be used in codebreaking that potentially compromises IT security.

Here are five interesting reads on quantum computing and its impact on cybersecurity:

Quantum Computing May Be Closer Than You Think

Classical computers will not be replaced by quantum computers. Quantum computers are for solving problems which traditional computers can not. They can help performa large number of algorithms, calculations, and even run simulations. For example, vaccine development can be achieved in hours or days where it might take several years with classical computers. Quantum technology is capable of opening up a whole new world of possibilities.

Quantum Computing and the evolving cybersecurity threat

Many underlying foundational technologies that rely on public key encryption are potentially at risk with the advent of quantum technology.Quantum computers are a double-edged sword that can break our current encryption algorithms,but also open the door for more advanced systems. It can help various industries,including transportation in optimizing routes, finance industries in performing risk analysis, genetic engineering, chemical manufacturing and drug development, and weather forecasting.

Quantum computers could crack Bitcoin by 2022

Quantum computers can be popular in terms of codebreaking, its capabilities can potentially introduce IT security issues. Encrypting doesnt guarantee protection, its only a way to make the data harder to access. With a private key, one can easily create its corresponding public key, but not vice-versa. It could take millions of years for classical computers to find a match, but a quantum computer can easily calculate the secret private key in minutes. This means that cryptocurrency, like Bitcoins that depend on blockchain technology, are at greater risk of quantum attacks.

A sufficiently powered quantum computer can make modern-day encryption look like a side quest in the hackers main gameplay.Developing quantum-resistant cryptography to thwart quantum hacking is the need of the hour.

The quantum computing cybersecurity threat cannot be underestimated

Quantum computing opens up incredible advances in computing, such as the ability to factor large prime numbers at incredible speeds.Unfortunately, the same prime factor numbering underlies the security systems we use to secure data in transit and in other information security arenas.

Building a quantum computer and achieving quantum supremacy is not childs play.It involves huge investments, and carefully shielded, isolated environments operating at supercold temperatures. The quantum race is real, and many countries have been investing heavily in quantum computing.We should also be mindful about the harvest now, decrypt later attacks where an adversary can steal high-value encrypted data now and store to decrypt it later, once they gain access to a powerful quantum computer.

Harvesting Attacks & the Quantum Revolution

The quantum revolution has already begun. Organizations should start thinking about best practices like crypto-agility, which is the process that enables an organization to replace traditional algorithms without having an impact on any other process in the organization.They should consider quantum-resistant cryptography, as the existing encryption protocols will become obsolete in a few years. This may not seem like an immediate risk, but given the challenges and potential need for mitigation surrounding new protocols,planning ahead is wise. It may take a few more years for the technology to be commercially available, but we should also remember that a few years back quantum computing seemed like a theoretical concept.

The post Five worthy reads: Understanding quantum computing and its impact on cybersecurity appeared first on ManageEngine Blog.

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from ManageEngine Blog authored by Sree Ram. Read the original post at: https://blogs.manageengine.com/corporate/general/2021/03/12/five-worthy-reads-understanding-quantum-computing-and-its-impact-on-cybersecurity.html

Follow this link:
Five worthy reads: Understanding quantum computing and its impact on cybersecurity - Security Boulevard

IonQ, a quantum computing startup born in College Park, announced Monday that it would likely soon become the first publicly traded company to specialize in commercialized quantum computing.

The company plans to file paperwork with the Securities Exchange Commission in the next week, which will allow it to go public on the New York Stock Exchange through an acquisition deal that would set the valuation of the combined entity to nearly $2 billion.

The ability to become a public company gives us access to a huge capital base, and that will allow us to spend more time building our system, deploying them for useful application, said Chris Monroe, IonQs founder and a physics professor at the University of Maryland. We can start to do our own research and development We can do more risky things.

Monroe and co-founder Junsang Kim formed IonQ with the goal of taking quantum computing into the market. They initially received $2 million in seed funding from New Enterprise Associates, giving them a license to lab technology from the University of Maryland and Duke University. From there, they were able to raise tens of millions of dollars in funding from companies like Samsung and Mubadala, and partnered with Amazon Web Services and Microsoft.

[Gov. Hogan names College Park quantum computing company one of top state start-ups]

The company going public was made possible by a planned merger with a blank-check firm, dMY Technology Group Inc. III.

If it goes through, the merger will result in over $650 million in gross proceeds, including $350 million from private investors, according to a press release from IonQ. Combined with the $84 million the company has raised in venture capital funding, the deal would place IonQs total earnings at about $734 million.

The transition to quantum computing is unprecedented, Monroe said, and it will allow people to solve problems that a regular computer often cant.

Some problems like optimizing a fleet of trucks or discovering medicines have too many variables to solve with regular computing. But at the quantum level, more information can be handled, Monroe said, making it radically different from todays computing.

University President Darryll Pines, formerly the dean of the engineering school, explained that classical computing uses a stream of electrical pulses called bits, which represent 1s and 0s, to store information. However, on the quantum scale, subatomic particles known as qubits are used to store information, greatly increasing the speed of computing.

IonQs approach to researching quantum computing has been rooted in university-led research. Quantum physics has strange rules that arent always accepted in the engineering world, Monroe said, so many of these laws have become the domain of research at universities and national laboratories.

And this university especially, with its proximity to Washington, D.C., has one of the biggest communities of quantum scientists, Monroe said.

We have students and postdocs and all kinds of researchers on Marylands campus studying the field, and at IonQ, weve hired many of them, Monroe said. And thats a huge advantage for us.

As a company with about 60 employees, some of whom attended this university, IonQ has become a pioneer in quantum computing. In October, Peter Chapman, IonQs CEO and president, announced the companys newest 32-qubit computer, the most powerful quantum computer on the market.

And in November, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan named IonQ one of the states top 20 startup companies in the state.

[Women of color in UMD community are making it as entrepreneurs despite challenges]

The biggest advantage for IonQ has been its technology, Monroe said. Companies like IBM, Google or Microsoft use silicon to build their computers but IonQ uses individual atoms, which, unlike silicon, float over a chip in a vacuum chamber.

That technology has been perfected at this university, Monroe said, and IonQ has a concrete plan over the next five years to manufacture quantum computer modules and wire them together.

By 2030, 20 percent of global organizations whether in the public or private sector are expected to budget for quantum-computing projects, according to Gartner Inc., a global research and advisory firm. That number is up from less than 1 percent in 2018, according to Gartner.

Niccolo de Masi, CEO of dMY, said in IonQs press release that he expects the quantum computing industry to grow immensely in the next ten years, with a market opportunity of approximately $65 billion by 2030.

Pines expressed his excitement at seeing a university startup make strides in computing.

Were happy for building the ecosystem from science, to translation, to startup, to possibly developing a product and adding value to society and growing jobs in the state of Maryland, Pines said.

The rest is here:
After merger, College Park startup IonQ plans to go public with $2 billion valuation - The Diamondback

Burnaby, B.C.-based D-Wave Systems is getting $40 million from the federal government to help advance its efforts in the development of quantum computing.

The funding comes from Ottawas Strategic Innovation Fund to support a $120 million project to advance D-Waves hardware and software.

Quantum will help us quickly solve problems that would have otherwise taken decades, said Franois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, told reporters during a virtual press briefing for the announcement.

In a separate release, he added that the funding will will help place Canada at the forefront of quantum technology development, and will create new jobs and opportunities to help Canadians and advance the economy.

A brief history (so far) of quantum computing [PART 1]

A brief history (so far) of quantum computing [PART 3]

A brief history (so far) of quantum computing [PART 2]

D-Wave is the first company to offer a commercially available quantum computer but is still only in the early stages of building a sustainable business after 20 years of development and more than USD $300 million in funds raised.

D-Wave promoted Silicon Valley veteran executive Alan Baratz to chief executive officer last year, replacing Vern Brownell. The company also experienced other changes at the top of the corporate ladder and has parted ways with long-time board members.

Jim Love, Chief Content Officer, IT World Canada

The rest is here:
Quantum computing company D-Wave Systems secures $40M in government funding - IT World Canada

A department overseen by European Union research commissioner Mariya Gabriel wants to safeguard strategic research by barring non-EU researchers.

By Nicholas WallaceMar. 11, 2021 , 4:25 PM

In a sign of growing national tensions over the control of strategic research, the European Commission is trying to block countries outside the European Union from participating in quantum computing and space projects under Horizon Europe, its new research funding program.

The proposed calls, which must still be approved by delegates from the 27 EU member states in the coming weeks, would shut out researchers in countries accustomed to full access to European research programs, including Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Israel. European Economic Area (EEA) countries Norway, Lichtenstein, and Iceland would be barred from space research calls while remaining eligible for quantum computing projects.

Research advocates see the proposed restrictions as self-defeating for all parties, including the European Union. It would be a classic lose-lose, with researchers in all countries having to work harder, and spend more, to make progress in these fields, says Vivienne Stern, director of UK Universities International. The unexpected news has upset some leaders of existing collaborations and left them scrambling to find out whether they will need to exclude partnersor even drop out themselvesif they want their projects to be eligible for further funding. It is really a pity because we have a tight and fruitful relationship with our partners in the U.K., says Sandro Mengali, director of the Italian research nonprofit Consorzio C.R.E.O. and coordinator of an EU-funded project developing heat shields for spacecraft.

In 2018, when the European Commission first announced plans for the 85 billion, 7-year Horizon Europe program, it said it would beopen to the world. Switzerland, Israel, the EEA nations, and other countries have long paid toassociate with EU funding programs like Horizon Europegiving their researchers the right to apply for grants, just like those in EU member states. After leaving the European Union,the United Kingdom struck a dealin December 2020 to join Horizon Europe, which put out its first grant calls last month through the European Research Council.

But more recently,strategic autonomy andtechnological sovereignty have become watchwords among policymakers in Brussels, who argue the European Union should domestically produce components in key technologies, such as quantum computers and space technology. Those views influenced the Commissions research policy department, overseen by EU research commissioner Mariya Gabriel, which drafted the calls and their eligibility rules,first revealed by Science|Business. The draft says the restrictions are necessary tosafeguard the Unions strategic assets, interests, autonomy, or security.

Its a bit of a contradiction, says a Swiss government official who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of forthcoming discussions.You want to open the program to the world and work with the best. But the core group of associated countries with whom youre used to working, suddenly you exclude them and force them to work with the competitors. The official says the Commission gave no warnings the proposal was coming but believes the combination of Brexit and the COVID-19 crisis, in which Europe has struggled to secure access to vaccines, masks, and other equipment, may have further spurred Europe to guard its technologies. Negotiations on Swiss membership in Horizon Europe have not begun, but the country intends to join.

The restrictions affect 170 million in funding that could be available in the next few months. The affected areas include quantum computing, quantum communications, satellite communications, space transport, launchers, andspace technologies for European non-dependence and competitiveness. Projects relating to the Copernicus Earth-observation system and the Galileo satellite navigation programs would remain largely open to associated countries.

Shutting out the associated countries would be alost opportunity and could slow progress in quantum computing, says Lieven Vandersypen, a quantum nanoscientist at the Delft University of Technology.To me, it doesnt make sense. Vandersypen contributes to an EU-funded project that is investigating how to create the basic bits of a quantum computer from cheap and readily available silicon. The project includes U.K. and Swiss researchers at University College London and the University of Basel.They are in there for a good reason, Vandersypen says.They bring in really valuable expertise. With a few years left on the grant, the project isn't in any immediate danger. But the exclusions are bad for long-term planning, Vandersypen says.

Non-EU researchers working on a 150 million European quantum flagship initiative set up in 2018 are also upset by the sudden reversal and wonder about their future status. We discuss with our partners in Europe, they ask us, Can you join?And we dont knowthats probably the worst thing, says Hugo Zbinden, a quantum physicist at the University of Geneva and coordinator of one of these flagship projects, QRANGE, which is investigating how a quantum random number generator can be used to improve encryption.

The restrictions are not yet set in stone; national delegates could reject the draft calls and ask the Commission to open them up. But member states accepted the legal basis for the restrictions last year, when they agreed to the Horizon Europe legislation.Of course, you hope that we will be in, Zbinden says. For the time being, we are waiting for some news.

Continue reading here:
Europe moves to exclude neighbors from its quantum and space research - Science Magazine

Like great art, great thought experiments have implications unintended by their creators. Take philosopher John Searles Chinese room experiment. Searle concocted it to convince us that computers dont really think as we do; they manipulate symbols mindlessly, without understanding what they are doing.

Searle meant to make a point about the limits of machine cognition. Recently, however, the Chinese room experiment has goaded me into dwelling on the limits of human cognition. We humans can be pretty mindless too, even when engaged in a pursuit as lofty as quantum physics.

Some background. Searle first proposed the Chinese room experiment in 1980. At the time, artificial intelligence researchers, who have always been prone to mood swings, were cocky. Some claimed that machines would soon pass the Turing test, a means of determining whether a machine thinks.

Computer pioneer Alan Turing proposed in 1950 that questions be fed to a machine and a human. If we cannot distinguish the machines answers from the humans, then we must grant that the machine does indeed think. Thinking, after all, is just the manipulation of symbols, such as numbers or words, toward a certain end.

Some AI enthusiasts insisted that thinking, whether carried out by neurons or transistors, entails conscious understanding. Marvin Minsky espoused this strong AI viewpoint when I interviewed him in 1993. After defining consciousness as a record-keeping system, Minsky asserted that LISP software, which tracks its own computations, is extremely conscious, much more so than humans. When I expressed skepticism, Minsky called me racist.

Back to Searle, who found strong AI annoying and wanted to rebut it. He asks us to imagine a man who doesnt understand Chinese sitting in a room. The room contains a manual that tells the man how to respond to a string of Chinese characters with another string of characters. Someone outside the room slips a sheet of paper with Chinese characters on it under the door. The man finds the right response in the manual, copies it onto a sheet of paper and slips it back under the door.

Unknown to the man, he is replying to a question, like What is your favorite color?, with an appropriate answer, like Blue. In this way, he mimics someone who understands Chinese even though he doesnt know a word. Thats what computers do, too, according to Searle. They process symbols in ways that simulate human thinking, but they are actually mindless automatons.

Searles thought experiment has provoked countless objections. Heres mine. The Chinese room experiment is a splendid case of begging the question (not in the sense of raising a question, which is what most people mean by the phrase nowadays, but in the original sense of circular reasoning). The meta-question posed by the Chinese Room Experiment is this: How do we know whether any entity, biological or non-biological, has a subjective, conscious experience?

When you ask this question, you are bumping into what I call the solipsism problem. No conscious being has direct access to the conscious experience of any other conscious being. I cannot be absolutely sure that you or any other person is conscious, let alone that a jellyfish or smartphone is conscious. I can only make inferences based on the behavior of the person, jellyfish or smartphone.

Now, I assume that most humans, including those of you reading these words, are conscious, as I am. I also suspect that Searle is probably right, and that an intelligent program like Siri only mimics understanding of English. It doesnt feel like anything to be Siri, which manipulates bits mindlessly. Thats my guess, but I cant know for sure, because of the solipsism problem.

Nor can I know what its like to be the man in the Chinese room. He may or may not understand Chinese; he may or may not be conscious. There is no way of knowing, again, because of the solipsism problem. Searles argument assumes that we can know whats going on, or not going on, in the mans mind, and hence, by implication, whats going on or not in a machine. His flawed initial assumption leads to his flawed, question-begging conclusion.

That doesnt mean the Chinese room experiment has no value. Far from it. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls it the most widely discussed philosophical argument in cognitive science to appear since the Turing Test. Searles thought experiment continues to pop up in my thoughts. Recently, for example, it nudged me toward a disturbing conclusion about quantum mechanics, which Ive been struggling to learn over the last year or so.

Physicists emphasize that you cannot understand quantum mechanics without understanding its underlying mathematics. You should have, at a minimum, a grounding in logarithms, trigonometry, calculus (differential and integral) and linear algebra. Knowing Fourier transforms wouldnt hurt.

Thats a lot of math, especially for a geezer and former literature major like me. I was thus relieved to discover Q Is for Quantum by physicist Terry Rudolph. He explains superposition, entanglement and other key quantum concepts with a relatively simple mathematical system, which involves arithmetic, a little algebra and lots of diagrams with black and white balls falling into and out of boxes.

Rudolph emphasizes, however, that some math is essential. Trying to grasp quantum mechanics without any math, he says, is like having van Goghs Starry Night described in words to you by someone who has only seen a black and white photograph. One that a dog chewed.

But heres the irony. Mastering the mathematics of quantum mechanics doesnt make it easier to understand and might even make it harder. Rudolph, who teaches quantum mechanics and co-founded a quantum-computer company, says he feels cognitive dissonance when he tries to connect quantum formulas to sensible physical phenomena.

Indeed, some physicists and philosophers worry that physics education focuses too narrowly on formulas and not enough on what they mean. Philosopher Tim Maudlin complains in Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory that most physics textbooks and courses do not present quantum mechanics as a theory, that is, a description of the world; instead, they present it as a recipe, or set of mathematical procedures, for accomplishing certain tasks.

Learning the recipe can help you predict the results of experiments and design microchips, Maudlin acknowledges. But if a physics student happens to be unsatisfied with just learning these mathematical techniques for making predictions and asks instead what the theory claims about the physical world, she or he is likely to be met with a canonical response: Shut up and calculate!

In his book, Maudlin presents several attempts to make sense of quantum mechanics, including the pilot-wave and many-worlds models. His goal is to show that we can translate the Schrdinger equation and other formulas into intelligible accounts of whats happening in, say, the double-slit experiment. But to my mind, Maudlins ruthless examination of the quantum models subverts his intention. Each model seems preposterous in its own way.

Pondering the plight of physicists, Im reminded of an argument advanced by philosopher Daniel Dennett in From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds. Dennett elaborates on his long-standing claim that consciousness is overrated, at least when it comes to doing what we need to do to get through a typical day. We carry out most tasks with little or no conscious attention.

Dennett calls this competence without comprehension. Adding insult to injury, Dennett suggests that we are virtual zombies. When philosophers refer to zombies, they mean not the clumsy, grunting cannibals of The Walking Dead but creatures that walk and talk like sentient humans but lack inner awareness.

When I reviewed Dennetts book, I slammed him for downplaying consciousness and overstating the significance of unconscious cognition. Competence without comprehension may apply to menial tasks like brushing your teeth or driving a car but certainly not to science and other lofty intellectual pursuits. Maybe Dennett is a zombie, but Im not! That, more or less, was my reaction.

But lately Ive been haunted by the ubiquity of competence without comprehension. Quantum physicists, for example, manipulate differential equations and matrices with impressive competenceenough to build quantum computers!but no real understanding of what the math means. If physicists end up like information-processing automatons, what hope is there for the rest of us? After all, our minds are habituation machines, designed to turn even complex taskslike being a parent, husband or teacherinto routines that we perform by rote, with minimal cognitive effort.

The Chinese room experiment serves as a metaphor not only for physics but also for the human condition. Each of us sits alone within the cell of our subjective awareness. Now and then we receive cryptic messages from the outside world. Only dimly comprehending what we are doing, we compose responses, which we slip under the door. In this way, we manage to survive, even though we never really know what the hell is happening.

Further Reading:

Is the Schrdinger Equation True?

Will Artificial Intelligence Ever Live Up to Its Hype?

Can Science Illuminate Our Inner Dark Matter

See original here:
Quantum Mechanics, the Chinese Room Experiment and the Limits of Understanding - Scientific American