Steve Bellovin wrote: >http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,93220,00.html?from=homeheads > >I'm not sure what more to say, given my opinion of the general utility >of quantum crypto....
Based on the way the article is describing it, this sounds like a newly funded research grant to study quantum crypto. Grants certainly don't represent settled policy, and it appears the bit about "defeating Echelon" may be coming primarily from the researchers getting funded, rather than from the funders. So I wouldn't read too much into this news article -- I certainly don't view it as an authoritative statement about the EU's policy on Echelon and quantum crypto. I certainly agree with everyone's skepticism about quantum crypto. Amusingly enough, if quantum crypto was deployed everywhere, it might indeed reduce the take from satellite surveillance, Echelon, and such types of SIGINT. Not because of the quantum crypto, mind you, but because of the use of fiber optics. Today's quantum crypto systems all pretty much require a dedicated fiber optic link between the two endpoints, and as we know, such links are harder to intercept remotely than RF traffic. Consequently, deployment of quantum crypto might reduce susceptibility to SIGINT by increasing use of dedicated non-RF links that are hard to tap remotely. Of course, you'd get basically the same benefits from sending signals unencrypted over a dedicated, unswitched, point-to-point fiber optic link, so the quantum crypto is irrelevant. Also, such dedicated non-RF links are typically very expensive -- they have horrible scaling properties compared to a shared network. So there are probably far cheaper ways to secure one's infrastructure against SIGINT, and I'm not going to defend quantum crypto. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
