also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.19.1115 +0200]:
> The sender sends RANDOM BITS to the receiver. Those that don't get
> eavesdropped can then be concatenated at both ends to produce an
> identical string of random bits. Since this is known to both
> endpoint parties, and not to the eavesdropper, it can be used as
> a session key for symmetric encryption. So it is not true that you
> have "lost data" by being eavesdropped. You've only lost random
> bits, not real data.

Does reading a quantum bit destroy the bit or simply flip it? If the
latter, how then can you find out when a bit got read?

> No physical theory is _EVER_ "proven", only "corroborated by
> observational evidence". Quantum theory is consistently
> corroborated by observational evidence. For comparison, Newton's
> theory of gravity was never "proven", but it matched (almost) all
> observational evidence.

But Newton gets more wrong the faster you go. So it's not F = m.a,
that theory was only a good approximation, nothing more.

> We _can_ make this statement about Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle.

Sure we can. But I don't accept an argument that QC is bettern than
asymmetric crypto because the second is based on assumption, when
the first is just as well based on assumption.

Fact is, MagiQ is wrong in claiming theoretical security.

martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use as keyserver!
"arguments are extremely vulgar,
 for everyone in good society
 holds exactly the same opinion."
                                                        -- oscar wilde

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to