 Okay, everybody, welcome back to Open GovCon Day 3. And yet another exciting brief this time. So we have Tim, the Director of Training with Linux Foundation, and he's covering a really exciting, very relevant topic of preparing for constant change with quantum agility. Over to you, Tim. Thanks, Kyle. Appreciate that. As Kyle mentioned, I am the Director of the Training Program for the Linux Foundation. What that basically means is I'm responsible for all of our content. The Linux Foundation, who is putting on this event, is actually a foundation of foundations. So there's over 900 other non-profit foundations that are part of LF, and I am responsible for any training that they might want. They can do their own, but that's part of the services we offer to them is training, certification, some other stuff like events, and that's why we're here now. So one of the things that I do as the Director of the Training Program is keyprack of emerging technologies. So I'm the author of the Kubernetes courses, for example, and now we have a second quantum, actually a third quantum course coming out as well. So we have introduction to quantum computing. We have a quantum circuits course that just came out, and another course aimed at CTOs is coming out. So how do we do organizational change for cultures in emerging countries to embrace what is quantum? So in this case, as part of the OpenGov con, this is an understanding, if you're in a government organization, why should I care about quantum, and what does it mean to me in this case? So one of the things, see my clicker works, hey, it works. So one of the things to think about is, you know, quantum, it's an enigma. I just love that play in words. So I'll try to limit the puns to just a few of them in this next 45 minutes or so. But I use this, this is the enigma machine. Has anyone know what the, who knows what the enigma machine is? Okay, so the enigma machine was broken. Alan Turing figured out what was going on with it, but the encryption used was the issue. Now, when the Axis powers realized that we were starting to read what was being done through this enigma system, they added wheels. The mathematician said we'll just add more encryption wheels and nothing can do math that fast. Now, this is important to us because most people think of quantum computing as faster. And depending on who you talk to, it's 160 million times faster than the fastest supercomputer we have today. And that is true. It is capable of being faster, but it's not just a speed thing. Quantum computing is a different type of computing. It is not just a speed change difference or advancement. So by adding the wheels saying, okay, we're using 128-bit encryption. Yeah, we're going to go to 256. That should take 10,000 years, even for such a large quantum system to fix. Or we'll go to 512 or 2048 and 49. We'll just double it. We'll double it again and then we're solved. The enigma machine was broken. The encryption was broken, not by brute force. It was a flawed type of encryption. So Turing and his team knew what almost every order started with and ended with because the Germans were really good at doing the same thing every time. What they realized was because every order started with the same phrase, ended with the same phrase, they knew what those phrases were. And what they realized was a letter was never encrypted as itself. So automatically, there were seven letters that they knew wasn't that. Then with some other issues with how this machine works, they were able to brute force the rest of it. So they narrowed it down, narrowed it down, narrowed it down and then attack the issue. It was a flaw in the enigma system. I mentioned this because we don't know what our flaws are in our current encryption types. And it would take so much computing power. It would take 10,000 years to even evaluate some of these types of encryption to see what the problem is, what the flaw is. Quantum, which approaches an issue in kind of a holistic way, it's not just a speed thing. It's a difference in type. Might be able to approach it and break or figure out what the break is in our encryption in moments, weeks, months. So quantum should not worry you because it is faster. Quantum should worry you because it's faster and it's different. It's almost a mental type of connection to solving these problems. So let's talk about quantum a little bit more. So if you, you know, there might be some physicists here. So to keep it simple for the non-physicists, what quantum is is entangling bits, qubits, quantum bits. There's a neat feature of tiny little particles that they remain connected to each other. Regardless of their distance, that connection called entanglement means that if I affect one of them, the other one is immediately affected. Well, that's great. You don't just entangle two bits. Maybe it's three bits. Maybe it's four bits. Maybe it's five bits. Maybe it's 10 bits. Maybe it's millions. So when I change one parameter, they all change. Now with common computers, a typical finite system, you add numbers, you have various pipelines, processor goes around, makes the calculation, saves it, makes the calculation, saves it, however many cores you have. But each one of those calculations, the more cores you add to it, the more pipelines that feed into the cores, the more data you can calculate in parallel, still takes time. And we measure the time, but how long does it take to come from cash into the processor, then go back out, then take the next calculation, add it together. That is what takes the time. Now imagine none of that time is needed for this calculation. So there's various, here we have a shipping channel out there. If you have 20 boats, five harbors, and you try to find the most efficient way to get this one load to those while all the other boats go, all those different calculations take a supercomputer months to figure out today. A quantum system, because once you change one variable, they all change, means that I say, oh, boats gonna go from port one to port three. No, you know what, now it's gonna port one to port seven. I don't have to recalculate everything. It's all being understood simultaneously. So now I can calculate what takes a thousand years on my laptop and it takes a supercomputer six months. I can keep calculating differences on my quantum machine in three minutes. So it's a relationship. Now how quantum works is we take these qubits and we have to suspend them so that we can figure out that relationship to them. To tell you why we're not there yet, imagine that you have to have this particle. We have to freeze this particle to understand what direction it's spinning and to take a photo of it because we don't know its state until we measure it. Well, when we entangle the stuff together, that we have to understand where it is. We have to have it into an array. So to understand how complex it is, imagine you have a beach ball that's spinning and you're trying to keep track of that spinning beach ball with others in a pool. Now put the pool in a tornado and you're trying to keep track of 12 beach balls in a tornado in your pool. What are the chances of being able to figure out their relationship with each other? Low. Now here's the fun part. Now start splashing that pool and figure out which of the beach ball is highest at any moment. It's basically impossible to do. So what quantum basically is is we freeze it. We take it down just a little bit above absolute zero. Then using lasers, microwaves, different ways of doing it, we push all these entangled bits together into an array and then see which one has the highest energy and which one has the lowest energy. But we have to do that by millions to have an effective computer. And now, realistically, we're in hundreds. So it's not a simple technology, but the more of these bits you tie together, the more of those calculations you can do simultaneously. Because when you touch one beach ball, all of the other ones change. So we freeze it just above absolute zero. Then we start splashing in the pool and the absolute zero, that means there's no more tornadic winds. It's now quiet. All those bits are kind of frozen. Now by frozen, I mean for, you know, one millionth of a second and we take a snapshot of it. And then we do that same shot 10,000 times and we take a mean value and say that's what the calculation happens to be. So that's a quick, really high-level understanding of what quantum is. It's a little bit more deep, but that entanglement is the key. The more of those items, the more of the beach balls that I freeze into an array so that when I splash on one side of the pool and I can figure out, oh, that one is highest and that one is lowest and I'm getting a value from that, the more I have is a 10, is it 100, is it a million? Is it 10 million? How many bits are in your processor? That's what we're talking about here. So I have 32 bits, but how fast does it run? That's why a five-gigar processor is better than a one-gigar processor. All of that is, it's a similar thing for quantum. So that's what we're really dealing with is the more bits we have, the more entangled we get them and the more stable that they are. The problem is it's not that there's no tornado, it's just not a really bad tornado. It's a windy day. And that's, so is that bit really where I think it is? Can I reproduce it all the time? But this system and that relationship between these entangled bits is why quantum isn't just faster, it's also different. The same relationships that take place, the high energy and the low energy, when I start ordering it, and I say, okay, the array of these is relatively the array of those, that's where I can make these complex decisions. To give you an idea of what that means, let's say that you talk to a friend and you say, standing next to an umbrella, what's the weather like outside? Now your friend knows that you really care do you need the umbrella? Because you're standing next to it. Now if you ask a finite computer, say what's the weather like, it will give you a report of the weather today. A quantum system will tell you, you don't need the umbrella. And that's the neat part of it. It knows what the real question was, not what you asked it. So we're starting to see in different areas, for example, in drug trials. Does this drug, there's some big efforts going on with figuring out what's the chemical makeup to solve like cancer, for example. So what they're finding is, does this drug solve that particular disease? What they're finding is, it's not the answer isn't about the drug. The answer is, this is how you eradicate the disease. It's not the treatment, this is the cure. And those are the kind of weird questions and answers that don't match. We asked it for a number and it told us a letter. And what they're starting to see is, it's because of the question is so complex that we're getting answers that shouldn't make sense. And there are people that run some of the largest quantum companies that they'll get real interesting on you and talk about alternate universes and that we're communicating and they're opening wormholes and stuff. And these are people who run those companies. They're not just somebody that they managed to sneak in with a badge on. This is the people who are leading the technology because it's that different. Now that matters to us because it's not just faster, it's different. It's going to recognize that our types of encryption, our types of security, it's going to see the flaw, not just the answer. And that's what we should be concerned about. So this is what the current public state of quantum computing is. Does that look cool or what? Right? Now here's the fun part. That is a really expensive refrigerator. There is a tiny little chip down at the bottom. That's a quantum processor. It's a gate. The rest of this is just for cooling quantum bits. It's literally a refrigerator. There's no real storage. There's no network. We have to array everything together, like the beach balls into the pool and so forth. All of that is this so far. So your cell phone has a screen. It has a keypad. It has all this stuff. We're interacting with it. We have none of that. We don't have libraries. Now that's public. There are some government organizations that had very promising research and then disappeared. One can guess why did they just disappear? As we know, when there's a failure, they're like, well, we need more money, right? Like, we'll try again. And they're doing along and then it's just, oh, that page is gone and all the people aren't talking anymore. So we could have gotten much faster than this and this is important to us. So what we have here is an expensive refrigerator. This is what you can go to IBM and get today. They talk about qubits and the entanglement. You can rent stuff online. There's a website StrangeWorks and they'll actually help you sign up with current existing quantum systems that you can rent and play with for a little bit. So really neat stuff, but that's the state we're at. We're still pretty new, but we're, let's say, three to five years from having a main frame-ish type access. So you go to the cloud and you gain real access to real computation. Okay, so three to five years, no big deal, right? There are some standards that we're coming up with, though, towards that three to five years that this is what NIST has said is the four current standards. We're in stage four of can they be used for encryption? And we can go into the detail. If you download the notes, there's a link and you can read the 400 pages on each one of these things and why lattice-based approaches because we can't use standard algorithms because the quantum machine can just solve that algorithm. This is the prime number, done, fixed. These are new ways that shouldn't be possible. Same thing with your signatures. These are ideas for signatures. So this has been worked on for a long time now. These standards, I think we're five years into NIST saying, what's their standards? Okay, great, this is wonderful. So the version three that came out before that, they said, this is our standard, okay? We spent years on it. This is our standard and it was broken in one week with a standard processor. It wasn't even a quantum system. So again, quantum, somebody broke that encryption type without quantum because it was a human who said, I see the flaw in this reasoning. I see how to solve for it. And that was a person in which one could argue that we have a quantum brain, but these standards now could be broken in weeks. I can save your stuff today. And I said, okay, we're three years from quantum being easily accessible. If I saved the data you have being sent around now and I read it in three years, would that be a problem for your organization? That's a good question. So if you're a neighbor, people who don't like you, people who want to do you harm are able to read your data in three years, is that okay? And government agencies, ours, others, are collecting the data in its encrypted form right now knowing that they'll just read it eventually, eventually meaning soon. As I mentioned, yeah, sure, the public is that refrigerator, but there's various organizations that disappeared off the radar. They are probably there already. So it's whether or not your local, your government, your military, effectively your data today will be read in three years. You should assume that, if not today. So what do we do? Well, this is what quantum agility is all about. So all this talk so far is why we need to have quantum agility. So as we look at this, how much time does it take to change your encryption standards? A small startup company is two years or so. So that's an agile group. We're talking 50 people and somebody says, we got to make a change. This is an issue. It's broken. Okay, we're on it two years from now. We're going to have a different type of encryption for our data. We'll have addressed the issue and started solving it. Great, so we're now two to five years away from quantum being available. People are already reading our stuff or have our stuff to read then. And if you're a small organization, you have two years. Midsize, five to eight years. So now we're talking, you have a few hundred people in your organization, maybe a couple thousand. You have an IT department that might have multiple parts, separate security people. You have a lot of moving parts going on. The time it takes goes up. Government agencies, 10 to 15 to never is the change. Now, if you've gone into some government locations, you'll see technology that it was very helpful to put men on the moon. And there it is in the corner, still working. And they'll open up the closet and oh, we bought 14 of these on eBay. So when that one breaks, we have another one. Like, well, have you thought about just updating it? No, no, we can't. Nobody knows how to. So when the project will end, when we go through that closet of eBay buys and we run out of the ultra-five server that's been running this satellite now for 25 years. I wish that I was being funny. That's actually the way things are. So that means your agency has data being saved, being encrypted, being tracked that you will not be able to handle it. And yet, all the data going through it, if I have access to it, I'll be able to read it and see it. Pretty much clear text. Now, I don't know about you guys, but you probably use a VPN here. You probably don't have all your email open. Hopefully your text isn't all open. So if you're texting your wife saying I'm going to be home and what do you want for dinner and I want that protected, imagine all of the data your organization keeps track of being widely available to people who don't like you. So this is an issue. It takes a long time to save for it. And if you say we're going to change to this new standard 2096, whatever, I'm just making whatever the number is. And then you spend 15 years getting there, halfway to that 15 years. Oh, that got broken. Yeah, we're going to have to do a new one. Well, that starts the clock over then. And let's say we're going to be efficient. So it's not 15 years. It's only eight years now. We cut that time in half. That's how good we are. This is why quantum agility is essential. Not only is it coming, you know, the train is coming. We're stuck in the tracks here, but it will continue because whatever that standard is, we just don't know when quantum will break that next type of encryption or that the next type of key signature. Again, standard processor one week. The U.S. government had something called the clipper chip. They invested a lot of money in this special encrypted chip and they went to Intel in Microsoft and said we're going to put this on everybody's machine in the world. We'll be able to read your data, but nobody else will. And that was again, one individual took him eight days and he broke it. And they spent five years building it. They said no one will ever be able to hack it. And that was one guy with a system at home. He wasn't even using supercomputers. He just sat there and worked on it, worked on it. He put a pile of pizza boxes and Mountain Dew bottles next to him and he put it on the internet, broke it, done, and he did it for fun. He's like, well, let's see if I can. So imagine one guy in a basement someplace does it. Imagine if you're a nation state and you're dedicated to this, how often, how fast is going to happen, especially if you have reliable current quantum systems running and you print money literally. So as you think, okay, great. Now, Tim has scared us. We realize that we need to be on this. What is it you need to be on? What is it that you should be doing right now or preferably five years ago? First, what encryption are we using? You'd be surprised what is baked in to your applications. Well, I mentioned, you know, that rack of Ultra-Fives in the closet, they don't even know. They're like, I don't know. I plugged this one in, plugged that one in and when that stops running, we don't talk to that satellite ever again. That's the way it's going to work. We don't know what's running in there. We don't know what the data is. So do you know, has somebody baked in encryption? Do you know what that encryption is? Do you know, is it encrypted? I don't know, but you should. The next question, what does it take to change it? Who's going to write that code? Can you change it? Yeah, that's the first question. If I can't change it, can I encapsulate it in some other ways? Or some bigger wrapper I can put around it. We did this with Telnet and FTP. Like, well, that's clear text and a bad idea. So we'll create some tunnels and we'll start pushing it through SSH and we'll do some other kind of tunneling with it and that's a temporary fix. But again, the encryption itself, SSH, clear text readable soon, if not already. So what can I do? Who can change it? You know, what does it take to change? Who does that software work? Most people have data. They don't know who owns it. And I might own the data, but I have 14 different people using it. So if I'm going to change it, when can I change it and how can I change it? So for example, I say, I'm on it. You know, my data, I'm really good at this. And I happen to have three different teams that use the data and I'm going to switch over to use this really nice bike encryption system. That's what we're doing today. And I start to rewrite my data. If all the other people don't know what the bike encryption decryption standard is, they can't use that data anymore. So what's worse that the bad guy, so to speak, is reading your data or that you aren't? In some organizations, it's better that nobody reads it. We'd rather turn it off than risk it. But in your environment, who's using your data? How do you get everybody to use the new encryption system at the appropriate time pretty much simultaneously, assuming you know who owns the data in the first place and who's going to do the work and who's going to fix it? So these are all the questions that should hopefully kind of worry you or worry you to the point that you go find somebody who might be in charge and then worry them about this because not only do you have to figure this out, but who is managing that data and who will change it again in a month and a half when we find out that that new standard was broken? So we have to modularize it. It has to be almost like a dongle or something that this is encryption standard one and then when that gets broken, here's our next one and when that gets broken, here's the one after it and the one after it. It will be a constant change, sort of like we change our socks. So every day we have a new keypad. I mean, one-time pads, there's places that have this level of encryption that they generate using, you know, entropy sources and somebody gets on an airplane with a USB stick and flies across the world and hand delivers it and that's the only way that they've been able to get the data to be protected. And even then with quantum systems, we don't know if that's really, really protected. It's just the best we have. So there's literally people flying around the globe all the time with USB sticks, holding onto them, locked to their wrist so they can go to a secure location and say, here, it has never left my sight. And I'll be back in three days with another USB stick. That's not terribly efficient. Most non-gov, non-mil, I should say, environments really can't do that. So big business, municipalities, you know, the state of California, probably can't afford to have people going to every data center, creating entropy sources and then hoping that that isn't intercepted as well because now you have a physical thing in there. There's a lot that goes into this issue. And how long would it take to even rewrite all the data? Because even if I have a new encryption standard, all my old data is not encrypted or has the old encryption. So I have to decrypt it and then re-encrypt it every time. So you have a few petabytes of data sitting around. Do you have the machines to just constantly rewrite the data? Who has the processing power to even do that? And who's going to manage that along with the data and along with the access? All of these things should be questions that you're asking, who's going to be responsible for it? Do I have a system of tracking? Who's responsible for it? Who has access to it? Who needs it in what order? And when we update the various types of encryption, we do it simultaneously that all the agencies that use this bit of data know it. And we all switch to the same time. So somebody's on the channel. We are going to change to alternate one. If everybody doesn't know that alternate one is channel 472, we don't talk anymore. So we all have to know when to change over. And then what's alternate one, alternate two, alternate three, and so forth. Those are the questions that all of us should be asking our entire IT department, all of our applications, because we'll have to change. And this is just the encryption side of it. We'll have to change it probably all the time. So what should I do? That's the real question. OK, Tim, this is horrifying. What do I do now? Well, you got to start. You got to start, go back to the previous questions again and start writing this out for all of your data. What encryption are we using? Good. Are you sure? Then who do I talk to about it? And if that person moves to a different job, how do I keep track of that? So in a constantly moving environment, this should be a worry of ours. But we should start it now because our data is being collected now. And it will be decrypted soon, if not already. But it's not going to get better. Now, people say, well, how about we use quantum to encrypt everything? Well, that might someday be handy. We're not there yet. So again, your data is being collected now and being read then. And do you have access to a quantum machine to do the quantum encryption? Maybe you're in an agency like that. That'd be great. Good for you. The rest of us, though, won't have access to it and will have to change it all the time because it's like, OK, I have a quantum system. Now, I have a bigger quantum, better quantum system that figured out that decryption standard. So it's sort of like having two people that play chess together. They get better at playing chess. So yeah, I beat you last time. And then next time you beat me, I have to get better and learn. And you're going back and forth. And you have petabytes of data that have to get rewritten every single time. The applications that use them have to get rewritten every single time. So quantum agility and why you should care is because quantum is here already. Your data is vulnerable already. And you need to change it quickly to meet the threat of tomorrow and the day after and the day after. So that is the talk. And I was, any questions? Anybody scared, worried, want to get out of IT? Yes, sir. My question is you said that it's very important for organizations to move to quantum for now and for encryption and so on. So if we as a corporate want to start migrating all of our encryptions to quantum, where should we start? There is a framework tools. Where can we start, actually? So there is a link. So if you download, you can go to a sketch and there's a, on this page, these two pages. This is what NIST says is currently the suggestion. Now it hasn't been formally approved but it's really likely that this will be good for a bit. And there's a link which you can't see here but I have it in the slide notes. And it is the NIST NIST link. And they say these are the standards and there's thousands of pages of this is the standard and this not implemented. Part of the problem is, is that how do I implement it? Now there's some vendors that are trying to get into the space. For example, IBM has a storage unit that is effectively this. There's a module front end that when the new encryption decryption comes out, take out the old, you plug in the new and it starts doing it for you. So, and then that's it. You're basically buying a dedicated data rewriting system. And so vendors like IBM are getting into this space. So that's one way of doing it, is just spend a lot of money and buy a lot of hardware. If you can't spend a lot of money, then start reading those documents and start figuring out how you're going to build a system just like it. Okay, thank you very much. Sure. And add on that as well. So LibOQS is an open source project that they're trying to find a way to use these algorithms. So check it out. Cool. And by the way, your TLS Windows can upwards of double for handshaking. So this has architectural considerations as well. Good times. Good times, exactly. Fun, fun, fun. I would like slightly a calm down situation because first of all, quantum computing, it's not so robust technology because Qubit, it's really fragile. Oh, yeah. It can exist maybe seconds now. So, and currently we haven't real quantum processor because it's something like play toy, nothing more. Second problem, we haven't quantum memory because if you would like to access data, process data, we need to have quantum memory. Otherwise we need to use hard drive, SSD. We need to spend a lot of time simply to extract this data. It's a big problem for quantum computing. Another point, we live in big data world. Okay, I would like to access your data, but I have terabytes of data. So even if it's not encrypted, how to find proper data to access? So I think, yeah, I agree. This is a problem, but from another point of view, quantum technology is not so robust. Well, I agree the big data environment, so... This is where we are. We're at the refrigerator stage. But that's the public stage, though. Yeah, I see the point. Who knows what China has? Yeah, I know. Yeah, I'm completely enthusiastic about this. I believe in it as a product, but as a current state of technology, it's not so great. I totally agree. Yeah, we have a processor. Like I was saying, there's no memory here. There's no interaction. We have to precompile all the questions, because there is no compiler here. There is no firmware. There's nothing. We don't have libraries even. This is all being, you know, stapled together, but in the public sphere, at very least. But that's today. But if I start collecting your data today, at this rate, things are changing. Three years, five years. And that's why I started off with, is it okay if I read your email three years from now? I'm okay with it. Okay, well, good. Yeah, I'm pretty boring myself, so I don't think I'd be like, wow, we're tracking the wrong guy here, but some people might be a little bit more concerned that they're, you know, like I said, your text. I send my, you know, like, hey, what am I picking up for dinner on my way home? I still don't want people to read that, and that's dinner plans. So it's being collected, and you can get a lot from what's said accidentally. You know, it's, in a security sense, in a government or military sense, you can still get an awful lot of information from very small messages. Yeah, another point that it's not generic purpose computing. Not yet. Special algorithms, another problem. So we have more problems with quantum computing than solutions. But cryptography, yes. It's one of the currently already existing solutions. And entanglement can be, can exist for pretty long distance. I don't know currently what the current state, but it's something like as minimum hundreds of kilometers. Sure. Maybe thousands. And currently there is something like research about how to use something like internet or something. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, there's, there's a philosophy that all items are actually entangled and we just don't know it. So when we affect it here somewhere in the universe, we are changing some other bits. We just don't see it to measure it. So that's a whole other thing. But one of the things to keep in mind is you can use a quantum system to figure out the flaw in the encryption, like the enigma code. It wasn't a brute force attack. Once I know what the flaw is, then I can use existing supercomputers, which we have oceans of sitting around to actually start decrypting the data. So I don't have to use quantum for all of it. I just have to use quantum to break the encryption. So once I broke the encryption, then my lake of systems that I have running, I can start churning through it and actually decrypt it. So that's the real flaw. I don't need an ocean of quantum systems to start attacking you. All I need is one quantum system. And once I figure out what's broken, my existing computers can solve it. I can go to Amazon, spin up some VMs and solve it, that. But I just need to know how to break your encryption. That's why we don't need to worry about lots of them. It's the one. And it's sort of like nanotechnology. Real nanotechnology, the first person who really gets there will be the only person who gets there because then they can do anything they want. Then when AI and quantum get together, again, there may only be one, because that system will say, must protect myself and I will take care of everything. That's why we have sci-fi movies like Terminator. It's the logical answer. Without morality, suddenly, people who are in prison are very controlled. So let's help them, put them all in prison. Yeah, you're asking right questions. But currently, multiple organizations even don't care with disposed old hard drives. We can access pretty top safety data. So it's a big problem. Oh, totally. Well, you know, people plug in their phone. Some of these rooms have plugs to charge your phone. People happily plug in their phone and I'm like, what are you doing? My God, you know? So I totally agree. I completely agree with you, but we don't need hundreds of quantum machines. We need one working quantum system. And then everybody's out of luck. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Statements from the inner child? Well, maybe an inner child. So one interesting thing about this is, you know, there's four or so of these algorithms that NIST has proposed. And really, the new kids on the block. Yeah. Okay. So we don't really have the benefit right now of all of the in-field testing that things like RSA have. So how do you see this unraveling then with these new algorithms that are, they keep you safe against one type of attack, but they don't have all of the kind of trust built up from something like RSA? Well, that is, therein lies the problem. Historically, things like Heartbleed, it was known and kept quiet. It's like, well, that's handy. I can take advantage of that myself. So I think trust is going to be a huge issue that is probably not going to be solved. It's been abused, and once that happens, you just don't go back. So I would not be surprised if somebody said, well, gosh, I know that this is broken, but I'm real smart and I'm the smartest guy ever. So no one else can figure it out. I mean, this might sound familiar to you. I've had these conversations like, well, nobody can be as good as me. And not realizing that you're not as smart and other people have figured it out already. So I would say the trust is probably going to be low, especially since like version three was broken in a week. But nonetheless, it's still better than using current 128-bin encryption. Yeah, great. I often put it like I have a lock on my door at home. That lock has a deadbolt made out of hardened steel that is firmly implanted in a quarter inch of pine. That means the door is as strong as a quarter inch of pine. So we all have, we all put that deadbolt. They're like, oh, now I'm safe, click. And in reality, we're just saying, yeah, strong winds, you know, animals, they'll stay out. That is what we're really talking about. The 128-bit is the standard. Just click, don't open it. If we start doing this, that's the deadbolt in a quarter inch of pine. Great. Bring it home. Cool. Any other questions? OK. Well, thanks very much. I appreciate it.