золотые слова

"Although most public key cryptosystems come with a security proof, these proofs are based on unproven assumptions."

(10x arkanoid)

а вот еще гениальное

"An auditor who attempts to find this security theorem in the literature will
easily find papers claiming to present “security proofs” for several different types
of quantum cryptography; see, e.g., [8]. However, the theorems in these papers
never seem to explicitly hypothesize L, the laws of physics.
Is this merely a culture gap—when physicists say “Theorem” they implicitly
mean a theorem under certain well-known hypotheses? Or is there an important
reason that these papers aren’t hypothesizing Newton’s law of gravitation, for
example, and Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism? Or refinements such as
general relativity and quantum electrodynamics?
An auditor who dives more deeply into the “security proofs” won’t find
Maxwell’s equations used anywhere. This justifies omitting Maxwell’s equations
as a hypothesis, but it also strongly suggests that the secret physical actions
taken by Alice and Bob don’t involve any electricity or magnetism. How could
one possibly prove anything about the effects of electromagnetic actions without
invoking the relevant laws of physics? Similarly, Newton’s law isn’t used anywhere,
strongly suggesting that the secret physical actions taken by Alice and
Bob don’t involve moving any mass around. But then what exactly are the secret
actions taken by Alice and Bob?"

(src, 10x arkanoid)