The headline/teaser made me smirk and after reading I am way much less scared about those quantum thingies factoring meaningful numbers (like i.e. public keys) in foreseeable future:
..
Peter Gutmann, a professor of computer science at the University of Auckland New Zealand, thinks PQC is bollocks – "nonsense" for our American readers – and said as much in a 2024 presentation [PDF], "Why Quantum Cryptanalysis is Bollocks."
..
->
https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/17/quantum_cryptanalysis_criticism/The paper linked from The Register is gold. Informative and amusing. I hope that guy will post something here in the WO. Maybe he's one of us already...
https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdfTL;DR: Quantum computers aren't computers: they are physics experiments. There's a tariff on American words, so we stick to "factorise" in this paper. The VIC-20, which is a computer, has beaten all current physics experiment to a pulp. Also a manual abacus has (analog hand-operated computing device). Also a dog has (mammal). Here are the details.
From the conclusions:
In terms of comparative demonstrated factorisation power, we rank a VIC-20 above an abacus, an abacus above a dog, and a dog above a quantum factorisation physics experiment. Finally, we provided standard evaluation criteria for future claimed quantum factorisations.