Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
>I think there is another problem with quantum cryptography. Putting
>aside the question of the physical channel, there is the black box at
>either end that does all this magical quantum stuff. One has to trust
>that black box.
>
>- Its design has to thoroughly audited
David Wagner wrote:
> One could reasonably ask how often it is in practice that we have a
> physical channel whose authenticity we trust, but where eavesdropping
> is a threat. I don't know.
The only answer that I have come across - to which I
ascribe no view on accuracy - is "undersea fibre" [1
martin f krafft wrote:
and the general hype about quantum cryptography, I am bugged by
a question that I can't really solve. I understand the quantum
theory and how it makes it impossible for two parties to read the
same stream. However, what I don't understand is how that adds to
security.
It's ve
At 10:18 PM + 9/13/03, David Wagner wrote:
...
One could reasonably ask how often it is in practice that we have a
physical channel whose authenticity we trust, but where eavesdropping
is a threat. I don't know.
I think there is another problem with quantum cryptography. Putting
aside the que
Martin F Krafft asked:
> So MagiQ and others claim that the technology is theoretically
> unbreakable. How so? If I have 20 bytes of data to send, and someone
> reads the photon stream before the recipient, that someone will have
> access to the 20 bytes before the recipient can look at the 20
> b
