On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > 1) Do you believe the physics? (Most people who know physics seem to.)
Yes. > 2) Does the equipment in your lab correspond to the idealized models > with which the proofs for (1) were done. (Not even close.) Does QKD address a real-world risk at a reasonable cost without unreasonable application constraints? If I am very concerned about PFS for secrets that must stay secure for decades and 521-bit ECDH is broken, yes I lose PFS. So there may be a market for fixed direct circuits used by a small number of agencies, but if I were a budget director I would spend the money elsewhere... > I am most curious as to the legal issue that came up regarding QKD. Indeed, what was the legal question that got us here? -- /"\ ASCII RIBBON NOTICE: If received in error, \ / CAMPAIGN Victor Duchovni please destroy and notify X AGAINST IT Security, sender. Sender does not waive / \ HTML MAIL Morgan Stanley confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]