On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 07:50:30PM +0100, Ian Hill wrote: > On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:20:37PM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > > Given that quantum computers will provide an enormous power boost, > > encryption experts believe that current standards for encryption, > > which are based on computational difficulty, will then fall. In the > > world of quantum computing and encryption, the question of which will > > come first, quantum computing or quantum encryption, is very > > important. > > In fact, it is vital. > > > > [...] > > I don't know enough about quantum computation to comment on this first > section. There are numerous comments that seem wrong to my > understanding, but I shan't make a fuss. > > [Blah Blah Blah] > > -- > Ian Hill > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Unprovided with original learning, unformed in the habits of thinking, > unskilled in the arts of composition, I resolved to write a book. > -- Edward Gibbon >
It has been politely pointed out to me that I overstepped my intentions with this post. Perhaps you will allow me to clarify myself before the flames begin :-) >From my reply to Matthew Byng-Maddick: I can't honestly say I follow the theory to its roots, but from what I do understand, QKD is 100% secure now (if it is implemented correctly). Provided that our current thoughts on Quantum Mechanics remain accurate, then I appreciate this system will be secure. I appreciate also that this is not like standard cryptanalysis, where you can just take a copy of the ciphertext and keep bashing at it with a range of techniques. In this respect this is a whole different scenario to cracking more standard crypto systems. The point I was attempted to make, but evidently overstepped slightly whilst writing up, was that I find it grossly arrogant to say this is it, we have QKD, we can all go home. One day I am sure someone will come up with a counter-theory [which allows us to detect polarisation without altering it] which doesnt fall on its face. Such is the nature of physics. [ END QUOTE ] -- Ian Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] The absent ones are always at fault. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
