At 12:44 PM 06/07/2003 -0400, John S. Denker wrote:
On 06/07/2003 08:04 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
I haven't seen this discussed here yet.
I hadn't seen this particular implementation of it discussed here
before your posting, but as John points out, the topic has been discussed.
It's somewhat cool,
Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't seen this discussed here yet. Is there something to this?
Quantum Cryptography is a really expensive way to provide link
encryption that is perhaps marginally better in some theoretical sense
to simply using, say, AES link encryption boxes a
Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> I haven't seen this discussed here yet. Is there something to this?
For limited applications, yes
QC in the form usually found in recent tests is actually quite simple.
The sender generates some good random binary data (from an unknown source,
doesn't really matter) and
On 06/07/2003 08:04 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
I haven't seen this discussed here yet.
It's been discussed here some, and discussed elsewhere
plenty. I get 19,000 hits from
http://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+cryptography+product+OR+products
> Is there something to this?
It depends on your d
I haven't seen this discussed here yet. Is there something to this?
(Forwarded from Dave Farber's IP list, forwards elided)
Dave
Some IPer's may not yet have seen how close BBC says quantum cryptography
may
be.
Bob
* Quantum leap for secret codes *
British scientists are close to creating a sy
