On 02/07/2017 06:48 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 09:10:02AM -0800, Razer wrote: >>> I can't parse the technical stuff. Does the last paragraph mean >>> they broke "old quantum crypto"? >>> >> >From the abstract and the last paragraph of the article what I'm seeing >> is they can detect a hack on the data (apparently even if it's simply a >> regurgitation of the original) because the 'noise' created by the >> tampering itself appears to leave a 'standard recognizable signature'. >> But pardon if that's not the answer to the question you asked... as the >> Sj: line implies this is way above my pay-grade. >> > On the cryptography mailing list there is summary for smart dummies: > http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2017-February/031425.html > >
Clear as mud thanks... :-(
