Mediaboss Marketing

IQM Finland Oy (IQM), a European startup which makes hardware for quantum computers, has raised a 15M equity investment round from the EIC Accelerator program for the development of quantum computers. This is in addition to a raise of 3.3M from the Business Finland government agency. This takes the companys funding to over 32M. The company previously raised a 11.4M seed round.

IQM has hired a lot of engineers in its short life, and now says it plans to hire one quantum engineer per week on the pathway to commercializing its technology through the collaborative design of quantum-computing hardware and applications.

Dr. Jan Goetz, CEO and co-founder of IQM said: Quantum computers will be funded by European governments, supporting IQM s expansion strategy to build quantum computers in Germany, in a statement.

The news comes as the Finnish government announced only last week that it would acquire a quantum computer with 20.7M for the Finnish State Research center VTT.

It has been a mind-blowing forty-million past week for quantum computers in Finland. IQM staff is excited to work together with VTT, Aalto University, and CSC in this ecosystem, rejoices Prof. Mikko Mttnen, Chief Scientist and co-founder of IQM.

Previously, the German government said it would put 2bn into commissioning at least two quantum computers.

IQM thus now plans to expand its operations in Germany via its team in Munich.

IQM will build co-design quantum computers for commercial applications and install testing facilities for quantum processors, said Prof. Enrique Solano, CEO of IQM Germany.

The company is focusing on superconducting quantum processors, which are streamlined for commercial applications in a Co-Design approach. This works by providing the full hardware stack for a quantum computer, integrating different technologies, and then invites collaborations with quantum software companies.

IQM was one of the 72 to succeed in the selection process of the EIC. Altogether 3969 companies applied for this funding.

See the original post:
European quantum computing startup takes its funding to 32M with fresh raise - TechCrunch

Quantum computers stand a good chance of changing the face computing, and that goes double for encryption. For encryption methods that rely on the fact that brute-forcing the key takes too long with classical computers, quantum computing seems like its logical nemesis.

For instance, the mathematical problem that lies at the heart of RSA and other public-key encryption schemes is factoring a product of two prime numbers. Searching for the right pair using classical methods takes approximately forever, but Shors algorithm can be used on a suitable quantum computer to do the required factorization of integers in almost no time.

When quantum computers become capable enough, the threat to a lot of our encrypted communication is a real one. If one can no longer rely on simply making the brute-forcing of a decryption computationally heavy, all of todays public-key encryption algorithms are essentially useless. This is the doomsday scenario, but how close are we to this actually happening, and what can be done?

To ascertain the real threat, one has to look at the classical encryption algorithms in use today to see which parts of them would be susceptible to being solved by a quantum algorithm in significantly less time than it would take for a classical computer. In particular, we should make the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric encryption.

Symmetric algorithms can be encoded and decoded with the same secret key, and that has to be shared between communication partners through a secure channel. Asymmetric encryption uses a private key for decryption and a public key for encryption onlytwo keys: a private key and a public key. A message encrypted with the public key can only be decrypted with the private key. This enables public-key cryptography: the public key can be shared freely without fear of impersonation because it can only be used to encrypt and not decrypt.

As mentioned earlier, RSA is one cryptosystem which is vulnerable to quantum algorithms, on account of its reliance on integer factorization. RSA is an asymmetric encryption algorithm, involving a public and private key, which creates the so-called RSA problem. This occurs when one tries to perform a private-key operation when only the public key is known, requiring finding the eth roots of an arbitrary number, modulo N. Currently this is unrealistic to classically solve for >1024 bit RSA key sizes.

Here we see again the thing that makes quantum computing so fascinating: the ability to quickly solve non-deterministic polynomial (NP) problems. Whereas some NP problems can be solved quickly by classical computers, they do this by approximating a solution. NP-complete problems are those for which no classical approximation algorithm can be devised. An example of this is the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP), which asks to determine the shortest possible route between a list of cities, while visiting each city once and returning to the origin city.

Even though TSP can be solved with classical computing for smaller number of cities (tens of thousands), larger numbers require approximation to get within 1%, as solving them would require excessively long running times.

Symmetric encryption algorithms are commonly used for live traffic, with only handshake and the initial establishing of a connection done using (slower) asymmetric encryption as a secure channel for exchanging of the symmetric keys. Although symmetric encryption tends to be faster than asymmetric encryption, it relies on both parties having access to the shared secret, instead of being able to use a public key.

Symmetric encryption is used with forward secrecy (also known as perfect forward secrecy). The idea behind FS being that instead of only relying on the security provided by the initial encrypted channel, one also encrypts the messages before they are being sent. This way even if the keys for the encryption channel got compromised, all an attacker would end up with are more encrypted messages, each encrypted using a different ephemeral key.

FS tends to use Diffie-Hellman key exchange or similar, resulting in a system that is comparable to a One-Time Pad (OTP) type of encryption, that only uses the encryption key once. Using traditional methods, this means that even after obtaining the private key and cracking a single message, one has to spend the same effort on every other message as on that first one in order to read the entire conversation. This is the reason why many secure chat programs like Signal as well as increasingly more HTTPS-enabled servers use FS.

It was already back in 1996 that Lov Grover came up with Grovers algorithm, which allows for a roughly quadratic speed-up as a black box search algorithm. Specifically it finds with high probability the likely input to a black box (like an encryption algorithm) which produced the known output (the encrypted message).

As noted by Daniel J. Bernstein, the creation of quantum computers that can effectively execute Grovers algorithm would necessitate at least the doubling of todays symmetric key lengths. This in addition to breaking RSA, DSA, ECDSA and many other cryptographic systems.

The observant among us may have noticed that despite some spurious marketing claims over the past years, we are rather short on actual quantum computers today. When it comes to quantum computers that have actually made it out of the laboratory and into a commercial setting, we have quantum annealing systems, with D-Wave being a well-known manufacturer of such systems.

Quantum annealing systems can only solve a subset of NP-complete problems, of which the travelling salesman problem, with a discrete search space. It would for example not be possible to run Shors algorithm on a quantum annealing system. Adiabatic quantum computation is closely related to quantum annealing and therefore equally unsuitable for a general-purpose quantum computing system.

This leaves todays quantum computing research thus mostly in the realm of simulations, and classical encryption mostly secure (for now).

When can we expect to see quantum computers that can decrypt every single one of our communications with nary any effort? This is a tricky question. Much of it relies on when we can get a significant number of quantum bits, or qubits, together into something like a quantum circuit model with sufficient error correction to make the results anywhere as reliable as those of classical computers.

At this point in time one could say that we are still trying to figure out what the basic elements of a quantum computer will look like. This has led to the following quantum computing models:

Of these four models, quantum annealing has been implemented and commercialized. The others have seen many physical realizations in laboratory settings, but arent up to scale yet. In many ways it isnt dissimilar to the situation that classical computers found themselves in throughout the 19th and early 20th century when successive computers found themselves moving from mechanical systems to relays and valves, followed by discrete transistors and ultimately (for now) countless transistors integrated into singular chips.

It was the discovery of semiconducting materials and new production processes that allowed classical computers to flourish. For quantum computing the question appears to be mostly a matter of when well manage to do the same there.

Even if in a decade or more from the quantum computing revolution will suddenly make our triple-strength, military-grade encryption look as robust as DES does today, we can always comfort ourselves with the knowledge that along with quantum computing we are also increasingly learning more about quantum cryptography.

In many ways quantum cryptography is even more exciting than classical cryptography, as it can exploit quantum mechanical properties. Best known is quantum key distribution (QKD), which uses the process of quantum communication to establish a shared key between two parties. The fascinating property of QKD is that the mere act of listening in on this communication will cause measurable changes. Essentially this provides unconditional security in distributing symmetric key material, and symmetric encryption is significantly more quantum-resistant.

All of this means that even if the coming decades are likely to bring some form of upheaval that may or may not mean the end of classical computing and cryptography with it, not all is lost. As usual, science and technology with it will progress, and future generations will look back on todays primitive technology with some level of puzzlement.

For now, using TLS 1.3 and any other protocols that support forward secrecy, and symmetric encryption in general, is your best bet.

See the original post here:
Quantum Computing And The End Of Encryption - Hackaday

IQM Finland Oy (IQM) was awarded a 2.5M grant and up to 15M of equity investment from the EIC Accelerator program for the development of quantum computers, benefiting the industry and the society at large.

Together with Business Finland grants of 3.3M that IQM received so far, the company is on a fast run with more than 20M more raised in less than a year from its 11.4M seed round, summing in total to 32M.

IQM has experienced amazing growth, set up a fully functional research lab in record time, and also hired the largest industrial quantum hardware team in Europe. With the help of this new 20M, IQM will hire one quantum engineer per week and take an important next step to commercialize the technology through co-design of quantum-computing hardware and applications.

Quantum computers will be funded by European governments, supporting IQMs expansion strategy to build quantum computers in Germany, says Dr. Jan Goetz, CEO and co-founder of IQM.

Last week, the Finnish government announced they will support the acquisition of a quantum computer with 20.7M for the Finnish State Research center VTT.

It has been a mind-blowing forty-million past week for quantum computers in Finland. IQM staff is excited to work together with VTT, Aalto University, and CSC in this ecosystem, rejoices Prof. Mikko Mttnen, Chief Scientist and co-founder of IQM.

This announcement was followed by the German government with 2b and to immediately commission the construction of at least two quantum computers. IQM sees this as an ideal point to expand its operations in Germany.

With our growing team in Munich, IQM will build co-design quantum computers for commercial applications and install testing facilities for quantum processors, states Prof. Enrique Solano, CEO of IQM Germany.

Quantum computing will radically transform the lives of billions of people. Applications range from game-changing invention of medicine and novel materials to the discovery of economic models and sustainable processes.

We are witnessing a boost in deep-tech funding in Europe, very important now. For a healthy growth of startups like IQM, we need all three funding channels: (1) research grants to stimulate new key innovations, (2) equity investments to grow the company, (3) early adoption through acquisitions supported by the government. This allows to pool the risk while creating a new industry and business cases, says Dr. Goetz.

IQM is focusing on superconducting quantum processors, which are streamlined for commercial applications in a novel Co-Design approach.

With the new funding and immense support from the Finnish and the European governments, we are ready to scale technologically. This brings us closer to quantum advantage thus providing tangible commercial value in near-term quantum computers, adds Dr. Kuan Yen Tan, CTO and co-founder of IQM.

IQM ranks in the top 2% of all European deep tech startups applying for the highly competitive EIC Accelerator program

Thanks to its strong technology and business plan, IQM was one of the 72 to succeed in the very competitive selection process of the EIC. Altogether 3969 companies applied for this funding.

The 15M equity component of the EIC can be an ideal contribution to IQMs Series A funding round. says a beaming Dr. Juha Vartiainen, COO and co-founder of IQM.

The new funding also supports IQMs recent establishment of its new underground quantum computing infrastructure capable of housing the first European farm of quantum computers.

IQM provides the full hardware stack for a quantum computer, integrating different technologies, and invites collaborations with quantum software companies. Brilliant quantum software engineers are also welcomed to join IQM.

Read more:
IQM awarded more than 20M for the development of quantum computers - Help Net Security

As time goes on, the value of efficiency and convenience becomes more and more important. Weve seen this in many examples from talk-to-text, to ordering food directly to your door without ever even speaking to another human.

Now coming into the convenience game is a keyboard that allows you to scan instead of type. Anyline is the new keyboard that instantly collects data with the snap of a camera.

Scan ID information, serial numbers, vouchers, IBANs, and barcodes in an instant with your smartphone, as it is compatible with Android and iOS. The app also allows you to scan things such as gift card barcodes, phone numbers you see on street advertisements, and more so, in a sense, it brings CTRL + C to real life.

With your smartphone, you can instantly collect data with the scan function on your keyboard. The platform is compatible with messenger, email, and browser apps. You scan the data and instantly paste it where you want it, saving the time of manual data entry.

This would be useful for scanning things to your notes section that you may refer to often, like your health insurance ID number, your WiFi router information, credit card info and what not.With anything else like this, the concern of privacy is always there so make sure youre doing what you can to protect your information (using a passcode and/or Face ID, not using shared/public networks, etc.) While you should know it by heart, I would recommend not ever scanning your social security number.

However, something like this does save a lot of time as it doesnt involve mistyping it picks up a barcode accurately. Also, you wont need someone reading something back to you so you can accurately type it down into your phone.

This could be a simple way to save time and become a more efficient person in general, and it makes it easier to share information with others. This is also super helpful for people who have trouble reading the teeny tiny type that barcodes are often displayed in.

Comment your thoughts below, and share any tips you use to help further your efficiency!

See original here:
The future of quantum computing is Azure bright and you can try it - The American Genius

When we hear about smart cities and innovation, the sad truth is that this concept may be overpromising and underdelivering. What we hear about are the exceptions and the success stories. But you could argue that not enough cities are taking advantage of the plethora of valuable and transformative new ideas and products out there.

In short, there is an gap between the aspirations of cities and the true capabilities of smart city innovation. Understanding the source of this gap is key for more cities to be able to start harnessing the value of smart city technology.

The promise of smart cities lies in technological innovations. But to leverage this potential, cities need to adopt them. While some cities like London, Singapore and New York are aggressively pursuing this agenda, others are less keen. In order to understand why, let us consider the diffusion of innovation research. The sociologist Everett M. Rogers demonstrated more than half a century ago that technological innovations pass through different stages of adoption in a population. Some people are eager to try out anything just because it is new while others would rather roll over and die rather than pick up any new technology.

Before an innovation has permeated the entire population, it has to be adopted by all these different people. Rogers distinguished five different groups of adopters with very distinctive behaviour and characteristics.

Innovators have an almost obsessive interest in new ideas and are willing to take risks. They are willing to accept a high degree of uncertainty and that an innovation might fail.

Early adopters are the opinion leaders and are well respected. Others look to them for validation of an innovation. They are typically focused on gaining an edge through innovation and are financially more successful than their peers.

Early majority want to have firm confirmation that an innovation is efficient before adopting.

Late majority adopt an innovation as a result of peer pressure and approached with scepticism and caution. They typically have relatively scarce resources, which means that most of the uncertainty about an innovation must be removed.

Laggards tend to resist innovations outright. They are typically the most constrained on resources and have to be absolutely certain that an innovation does not fail before adopting

While Rogers focus was on individuals, organisations exhibit the same characteristics: some will adopt any new innovation like blockchain or quantum computing, while others feel safer holding on to their mainframes and fax machines for as long as possible.

The problem is that most cities fit the description of the last two categories. They are constantly pressed for resources and have no appetite for potential failure. They have to make sure that an innovation succeeds. The products they choose to adopt are already tried and tested in the market.

However, most smart city technologies are at the early stage of the adoption journey. They are being deployed by innovators and early adopters responsible for smart city policies. At present there are very few smart city solutions that have journeyed along the curve to achieve widespread deployment.

Deploying technology at an early stage also requires specific values and skills. Making something completely new work in an organisation is very different from managing existing infrastructure. A United Nations study into the motivation of public sector employees has found that civil servants are typically motivated more by helping for the common good rather than making cutting edge technology work.

Additionally, cities usually have a salary range that is low compared to what private companies can offer. The group of potential employees that are specialists in applying technological innovations are highly priced in the market. This means that cities often find it hard to compete for this talent.

Deploying technology at an early stage also requires specific values and skills.

This does not, however, mean that it is impossible for cities to overcome the innovation gap, it just means that it does not come naturally.

One further problem is that of citizens. Cities have residents that depend on how well these solutions function. There is increased scrutiny because they are spending taxpayer money. Cities are not a hot startup with an autocratic CEO that can just kill a product and move on if it doesnt work. The demands and expectations of citizens go some way to explain why cities have natural and well-founded reservations about innovations.

However, innovation is not the only thing that matters; the maturity of the solution is also important. When a city needs to source and implement a new solution, it can do so using a variety of different models:

In house developed by city employees. This usually has a low innovation potential because city employees are not typically recruited or rewarded for doing cutting edge work, but it will typically lead to more mature solutions.

Procurement developed on contract by third party. This can be a good way to implement a novel solution but requires that the city has control and a clear idea of what it expects from the implementation partner.

Sponsored developed for free by third party. While attractive and possibly a good way to source innovative solutions, cities need to make sure that the sponsoring party has adequate understanding of the problem area.

Public private partnerships collaboration between the city and vendors. This is potentially a powerful combination as cities have the subject matter expertise and vendors bring the technical know-how. While this can be efficient, the likes of intellectual property rights to the finished solution and future pricing for licensing support and operation needs to be sorted out upfront. Cities also need to be transparent in their dealings to avoid accusations of corruption.

Hackathons developed by individuals for free. These can be good for generating new ideas and approaches, but not mature products

Civic groups developed by residents in a group. These focus on bottom up interest from citizens and therefore can be good at generating novel ideas that bring immediate value. However, they are difficult to manage and often are best to engage with through openness and dialogue.

University collaborations developed by students and faculty for free or paid. Major cities often have university systems that bring an exceptional know how and potential for new ideas. The flip side is that universities are motivated more by interesting ideas than by bringing mature solutions to market.

These different forms of engagement can all work to fill the innovation gap. Cities can use them selectively for different areas depending on the maturity needed. Chosen carefully they may provide a patchwork of opportunities that support the city in a valuable way.

For example, working on a solution to find out how to identify all people with disabilities who need help in an evacuation may not need a very mature solution, since it just needs to produce a list. In this case, a university partnership or hackathon may be sufficient.

However, revamping the citys system of evaluating the chances of reoffending is not a likely candidate where the Move fast and break things model, since it has enormous consequences for residents lives. If this solution does not work, it could negatively affect crime levels. This clearly requires a different level of maturity so procurement or a public private partnership is more suitable in this case.

Understanding and experimenting with different models of engagement may help cities to better take advantage of smart city innovations. However, it requires the will to go outside traditional business as usual thinking.

Read more from the original source:
Overcoming the innovation gap - SmartCitiesWorld