@soatok@risottobias@khm@ambiguous_yelp@sammi@joelanman Anything not hybrid is betting on unproven cryptography. And doing it on a deceptive claim that risk of real world Shor's algorithm is higher than risk of trusting new crypto that hasn't stood for decades without breaking.
The consensus among lattice experts and cryptanalysts is that, while there is some algebraic structure to some schemes that might be interesting targets for future attacks, their security is pretty well understood. NTRU and whatnot have been around for longer than AES. Is AES "unproven"?
@soatok@risottobias@khm@ambiguous_yelp@sammi@joelanman No, it's that, short of formal proof of security which is believed impossible, the only proof I accept is that breaking it would have been worth billions but nobody has done it.
Another point worth noting is that the way they implemented PFS in signal's ratchet, it's not like you could compromise a session by breaking a single key exchange. Instead, in a hypothetical store-now-decrypt-later attack you would have to have a (gapless!) history of all traffic in either direction between two devices since they established contact, and you'd have to crack thousands of key exchanges.
Also note that all these protocol messages are never sent in the plain. They get tunneled over TLS, so on top of breaking all of signals DH-key exchanges, you'd first need to break a bunch of TLS connections too.