Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-07-09 Thread Alexander Klimov
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2376 Unconditional security proofs of various quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols are built on idealized assumptions. One key assumption is: the sender (Alice) can prepare the required quantum states without errors. However, such an assumption may be

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-22 Thread Steven Bellovin
While I'm quite skeptical that QKD will prove of practical use, I do think it's worth investigating. The physics are nice, and it provides an interesting and different way of thinking about cryptography. I think that there's a non-trivial chance that it will some day give us some very

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-22 Thread John Lowry
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: Via /., I saw the following article on ever higher speed QKD: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/19/super-secure-data-encryption-gets-faster.aspx Very interesting physics, but quite useless in the real world. I wonder why

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-22 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu writes: While I'm quite skeptical that QKD will prove of practical use, I do think it's worth investigating. I agree. What I don't understand is why people are trying to *commercialize* it, or claiming that it is of practical use as it stands. The physics

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-22 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:46:18AM -0400, John Lowry wrote: My own speculation is that the security community and its interests are perhaps a bit broader than than some members wish it were. If you want to see some interesting physics that represents unexpected results relevant to

RE: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread John Leiseboer
At 11:31 AM -0400 4/20/10, Perry E. Metzger wrote: I wonder why it is that, in spite of almost universal disinterest in the security community, quantum key distribution continues to be a subject of active technological development. Paul Hoffman wrote: You hit it: almost. As long as a few

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread silky
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote: Via /., I saw the following article on ever higher speed QKD: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/19/super-secure-data-encryption-gets-faster.aspx Very interesting physics, but quite useless in the real

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread Perry E. Metzger
silky michaelsli...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote: Via /., I saw the following article on ever higher speed QKD: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/19/super-secure-data-encryption-gets-faster.aspx Very interesting

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread Perry E. Metzger
silky michaelsli...@gmail.com writes: First of all, I'm sure you know more about this than me, but allow me to reply ... On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote: Useless now maybe, but it's preparing for a world where RSA is broken (i.e. quantum

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread silky
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote: [...] Second, you can't use QKD on a computer network. It is strictly point to point. Want 200 nodes to talk to each other? Then you need 40,000 fibers, without repeaters, in between the nodes, each with a $10,000 or

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread silky
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote: No one is doing that, though. People are working on things like faster bit rates, as though the basic reasons the whole thing is useless were solved. I don't think you can legitimately speak for the entire

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Let me note that Mr. Leiseboer is the CTO of a company that makes QKD equipment. John Leiseboer jleiseb...@bigpond.com writes: I too once worked exclusively in the world of classical cryptography and was sceptical of QKD. I now work in both worlds - classical cryptography and QKD. I now know

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-21 Thread Perry E. Metzger
silky michaelsli...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote: No one is doing that, though. People are working on things like faster bit rates, as though the basic reasons the whole thing is useless were solved. I don't think you

Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-20 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Via /., I saw the following article on ever higher speed QKD: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/19/super-secure-data-encryption-gets-faster.aspx Very interesting physics, but quite useless in the real world. I wonder why it is that, in spite of almost universal disinterest in the

Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...

2010-04-20 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 11:31 AM -0400 4/20/10, Perry E. Metzger wrote: I wonder why it is that, in spite of almost universal disinterest in the security community, quantum key distribution continues to be a subject of active technological development. You hit it: almost. As long as a few researchers are interested,