Slashdot Mirror
Practical Quantum Cryptography
Alien54 writes: "Saw this on Eureka Alert: A commercially available system for quantum key distribution and cryptography has been released by a spin-off company from the University of Geneva. The system has been tested over distances up to 70km (from Geneva to Lausanne) through standard optical fiber cables and connects to PCs via USB ports. Transmission rates of about 60 bits per seconds were achieved, sufficient for key distribution. You can see the original abstract here, which also has a link for download of the paper in PDF, Postscript, and other formats."
Was it a spin-off company, or perhaps just a spin-up or spin-down company?
As nice as this scheme might be compared to previous quantum cryptography schemes, there are still fundamental problemns with implementing quantum cryptography. First off, you need a single, otherwise unused optical fiber to connect the two boxes. This means running your own cable. There's really no way around that. You're not going to find unrepeated, unused fiber just lying around.
vi is my shepard, I shall not font.
The conclusion of the article states that the system is currently commercially available. Here is a link to the QKD System.
-- Find the Truth...
pw:secret
I'm obviously missing a great deal of information. I thought quantum cryptography relied on quantum computing, which as of now, doesn't exist. Anyone care to fill in this (egregious) gap of knowledge?
You probably recall how quantum computation works: essentially you shove all the extra computation off into parallel universes and then get the answer back when it comes. Why not expand on that idea and use quantum file storage? The RIAA can create CDs where only part of the audio track exists in our universe and the rest is retrieved from parallel universes by your quantum audio system. This makes file copying mathematically impossible.
Now someone is probably going to pop up and say "well, I can pirate the signal after it has been revirtualized from the quantum foam". I'm glad you brought that up because it leads right into phase two of my idea. In order to listen to music, all consumers would be have sound-decoding chips implanted in their brains. The music would be beamed directly into your head from your audio system.
Thus we see that file copying can be made impossible by those that are willing to pay the price of our freedom. The only solution is to keep quantum computers from becoming a reality
Great...all my encryption problems are solved!!! And not a moment too soon, either...
:-)
After all, I was getting a bit nervous with respect to my encryption needs in light of the retirement of further development of PGP and the possible inadequacies of GnuPG...
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
Well, I wasn't too sure, so I dug up some links to try and help myself and others understand this:m /quantum-index.html
http://research.microsoft.com/~gottesma/QKD.html
http://www.qubit.org/intros/crypt.html
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/Crypto/quantu
The last link is particularly +1 insightful about the basics of quantum cryptography.
I posted to
The laser-based system hopes to eventually bounce the signals off mirrors on satelites, sending keys anywhere in the world. (For a price... good for diplomats and military I suppose.)
The fiber systems are still in need of a repeater-like device before they can get more significant distances.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Some ideas called quantum cryptography, such as using polarized photons (quanta of light) rely on the quantum mechanical properties of the photons, but not necessarily quantum computing. A good overview of how this works is included in The Code Book, by Simon Singh, I suggest you give it a look. Without going into the detail here, I can tell you that if the quantum cryptography he describes ever works it would not only be absolutely secure (this can be mathematically proven) but by its nature you could tell if someone was eavesdropping on the line.
----
Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
Home Page here:
www.idquantique.com/index.html
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Quantum Crypto is based on the transmission of photons or somesuch.
The jist is if I send from
A =====> B
and someone traps the bits in the middle
A ===/C/===> B
e.g. an eavesdropper than they will change the spin of the photons and B will know [and in turn A].
So with quantum crypto you can send from A to B without any real crypto and you will be assured that an eavesdropper cannot get the message.
The big problem is this all requires direct connections.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Actually, quantum physics protects key distribution from retransmission. One of the fundamental benefits of quantum cryptography is the reliance on the principle that measurement affcts that which is being measured. In short: it is possible for the sender / receiver to determine if their key was intercepted by using unsecure communication of other information that doesn't benefit anyone else that may happen to see it. For a great explanation of how to protect your key distribution in this way, see this article in the New Scientist.
"Whether or not you believe me, I'm right" -RWF
Thats a very good point. Quantum cryptography is essentially a form of One-time pad cryptography, which is an algorithm that uses a completely random assortment of characters as the key, and each key is used only once. This type of cryptography is said to be absolutely unbreakable, and in a realistic sense this is true. However, using brute force one can decode the possible message, but included with that you will get every other possible message that is of the same length as the encrypted message. This is what makes quantum cryptography so secure.
----
Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
If it's going to be bouncing light off of mirrors on satellites without actually modifying the light itself, I don't see how they can charge. Anyone that points the dish right can bounce it off the mirror. Of course it also seems you'd have no control of where it eventually ends up (since the mirror will be bouncing it to wherever the satellite is targetting it).
Post Script To clarify. The polarizer settings can be shared afterwards, but not in a manner secure from interception and then alteration to make it look like like the photons were not intercepted.
What makes the transfer secure is that the two parties involved don't reveal their polarizer settings until AFTER the bits have been transferred. By which time, it's too late for the "man in the middle" to go back and change his answers.
It's really quite clever...
-Mark
if anyone wants to read more look for this book which covers the history of cryptography from ancient egypt to quantum cryptography...i read it, and it was extremely interesting from a mathematical and computer point of view...it includes a whole section of the theories behind quantum computing and quantum cryptography...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Wrong. The beauty of it, is that the settings don't have to be known. You call up over the phone, and check against each other... and the info you exchange in the phone call isn't the settings, just what you observed. If both observations match, then it wasn't intercepted. In this way, it's impossible to know the settings... without those, retransmission will fail.
Still doesn't prevent truly paranoid stuff, like someone installing BO on your computer, and eavesdropping on the unencrypted stream.
But how do you know who the recipient is? QC offers no authentication. If you have to use public key for authentication, what advantage is gained by using superior methods for confidentiality?
The only one I can think of is that, with conventional cryptography, you can capture the data stream and crack it "off-line". I suppose that this is significant: with QC you only have to worry about whether they've cracked your private key (that you will use for authentication) already, not whether they can in 100 years (because you've used it for encryption).
Another argument might be that it is easier to eavesdrop on a channel than to redirect it. But that seems like a dubious assumption, if the enemy is determined.
Thoughts?
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
I certainly hope not. Most of the philosophisizing about quantum mechanics that makes its way into popular books is crap. They miss the crucial distinction between "unknown" and "indeterminate," and in so doing give quantum mechanics some spooky relationship with consciousness or a universal oneness that it just doesn't have.
Schroedinger's cat may have sacrificed its life to make this product a reality. Or maybe not. Only Heisenberg knows for sure.
Man, you made my day. This may lead some to wonder how boring my day is. It's pretty boring.
"RIAA can create CDs where only part of the audio track exists in our universe..."
I would bet this appeals a lot to RIAA. But why stop there? From what I understand they're looking for a way to sell you the CD so that there's actually no music on it.
Perhaps just a recording of one of the executives in charge saying "Thank you for purchasing this digital music container device. We assume that you have a computer and have downloaded countless megabytes of our copyrighted material. Therefore, we have pre-removed the equivalent amount of data from this CD. Enjoy." Followed by 71 and 3/4 minutes of silence.
Sweat
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
F4RVVMI0-4MV4K3-GNJWRLNVUWILSNVH47 TP9MTJ894PW3MJSK4L;M49TIMAJK TMVAKL;TMAW4K950[MAWVK9T[MK9PUD56MO/8NK 4SW-90A-94 8I3E-90 9Y5-4]Y59S,BOKSY;'5GB L; YL;SE,L YR;E'KAO P34[I693 A[90[ ZGFKGL;/ ,GL;D'F KGLSDF;'G DSFG,DFLG;D L; C3D1JKCN00892N5VFKLMD31NOV VTN5UIONT
And that completes our tour of Hilbert Space. Any questions?
Oh for crying out loud! Who let that cat in here? Now I don't even know what i said. That's one dead cat if I ever get my hands on it.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hmm...so if the top 1% of income-earners pay more than a third of all income tax revenue, the top 5% pay over half, and the top 10% pay nearly two-thirds, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "only the little people pay taxes?"
(Source: http://www.atr.org/talkingpoints/012202tp-2.htm)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You kind of answered your own question didn't you? Sure you can bounce a LASER off of the mirror at random for free. If you want them to target the the mirror so the bounce goes when you want, you have to pay.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
The 60 bits/second is only used for the key exchange. The key is for a ordinary symmetric cipher, such as RC5, DES, AES, or Blowfish. For example a 64 bit key for RC5 would take slightly over a second to transfer. And our friends at distributed.net have been working on breaking a 64 bit RC5 messages for the past four years and still have not exahausted the keyspace. Symmetric ciphers have many more valid keys per bitsize than asymmetic ciphers, giving you stonger protection. Keys for symmetric ciphers don't need to be as large as those for asymmetric cipers, 60 bits/second is a little slow, but definitely adequate.
I mean interception, not man-in-the-middle. I cut your fiber and read your photons, without trying to pass them on to the intended recipient. Then, when you try to contact the recipient over some "conventional" channel for phase two (comparing the polarities on the two ends), I intercept that, and we discuss the polarities I intercepted. You require that my messages be signed by the intended recipient, of course, but I've broken RSA, so no problem. Then, you send the message xor'ed with the random bits, and I intercept that. I've stolen the message, and you're none the wiser.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
This doesn't work either. The man in the middle might try this, but he will be revealed when the two participants check their observations against each other. Remember, this isn't encryption itself, so much as a way to securely distribute keys.
If you're talking about some Col Waresque plot that involves a Russian KGB agent who has trained 20 years just impersonating your friends voice, and he is perfect, and also has the tech to intercept and then retransmit, well then I suppose you're screwed.
But if you're that paranoid, what's to stop some psychic or savant from somehow guessing the key? Miss Cleo might not be able to testify against you in court, but if she could decode your trade secret for the competitors...