Slashdot Mirror


BBN Announces Functional Quantum Encrypted Network

anzha writes "BBN Technologies has announced that under DARPA's Quantum Network Project to have built in conjunction with Harvard University the world's first functional quantum encrypted network. This is probably funded under DARPA's Quantum Information Science and Technology Program."

49 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Patents.. UCK by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Patent-pending BBN protocols pave the way for robust quantum networks on a larger scale by ...

    AND

    We were ahead of the technology curve with the ARPANET and the first router, and our quantum network exemplifies the same kind of forward thinking and innovation that has made BBN a technology leader for over 50 years

    All this would be just fine if it wasn't for the horrible P word. They've automatically, like all people who patent cryptography, made their entire idea completly unprofitable and made sure that no-one ever implements it. The thing is.. there's no market pressure to adopt this stuff.. we already have secure communication. Sure.. it's improved but so was eliptic curve cryptography but no-one uses that because of patents.

    What a waste of time!

    Simon.

    1. Re:Patents.. UCK by pedantic+bore · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They've automatically, like all people who patent cryptography, made their entire idea completly unprofitable and made sure that no-one ever implements it.

      Yes, just like RSA, and Diffie-Hellman key exchange, SHA-1... C'mon. You use patented stuff all the time.

      there's no market pressure to adopt this stuff.. we already have secure communication.

      Oh, where to begin... we don't have secure communications, what we have are communications that nobody knows how to break yet. Quantum cryptography is a different ballgame. It can't be broken without changing the laws of physics.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    2. Re:Patents.. UCK by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      what we have are communications that nobody knows how to break yet. Quantum cryptography is a different ballgame. It can't be broken without changing the laws of physics.

      Aren't at least some of the widely used security algorithms proven to be likewise unbreakable without changing the laws of, mmmm, mathematics?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Patents.. UCK by Fnord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not all the laws, just P != NP.

    4. Re:Patents.. UCK by pedantic+bore · · Score: 5, Informative
      Aren't at least some of the widely used security algorithms proven to be likewise unbreakable without changing the laws of, mmmm, mathematics?

      None, except for one-time pads (which have other problems). For example, many schemes depend on the fact that it's impractical to factor large numbers. The truth is that nobody knows how to factor large numbers today, but it's also true that nobody knows how hard this problem really is. Perhaps someone clever will figure out how to do it tomorrow... and in the meanwhile, someone already has figured out how to factor large numbers using quantum computing. Nobody has built a quantum computer large enough to run the algorithm, but once they do, you can kiss all these schemes goodbye.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    5. Re:Patents.. UCK by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, just like RSA, and Diffie-Hellman key exchange, SHA-1...

      None of those are in patent. RSA was patented but that patent expired a few years back. SHA-1 was never patented nor was Diffie-Helman.

      we don't have secure communications, what we have are communications that nobody knows how to break yet

      Well, not exactly we have the One time pad but that aside: What makes physics different to mathematics? You can't prove a physical theory is true like you can a theorem. There is a small chance quantum mechanics is wrong and there is an alternate theory that describes the photons in a deterministic way.

      Yes, it's a small chance.. but don't forget that there's also a small chance that you can find a quick algorithm to solve AES. Changing the laws of physics tends to happen once a century - Theorems on the other hand last forever.

      Simon.

    6. Re:Patents.. UCK by Afty0r · · Score: 2, Insightful
      what we have are communications that nobody knows how to break yet. Quantum cryptography is a different ballgame. It can't be broken without changing the laws of physics.

      What you should have said is that It can't be broken without changing the laws of physics as we know them (yet) . The "Laws" of physics change all the time, as we make new discoveries and adopt new theories.
    7. Re:Patents.. UCK by sysopd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The "Laws" of physics change all the time, as we make new discoveries and adopt new theories.

      Well the Laws don't change at all, we just get closer and closer to fully understanding them as time goes on. As in, there is a truth that we observe as X. The truth is elusive, and the best way we can describe it currently is X. We call this the 'Laws of Physics' which are the simplest explanation for what is happening, and generally correct to a certain fidelity. This fidelity increases as our understanding of the actual Law increases.

      So really, what you should have said was "Our understanding of the Laws of physics change all the time as we make new discoveries and adopt new theories".

    8. Re:Patents.. UCK by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Insightful", hmmm...

      The Laws don't change at all. You may or may not have noticed that there have been no new Laws of Physics in at least a hundred years, if not longer. Physics the science has long since recognised that there are few if any absolutes, and so stopped calling things "laws" a long time ago. Even Relativity (very actively investigated, yet to be disproved) is "only" a theory.

    9. Re:Patents.. UCK by chill · · Score: 2, Informative

      Details, details, details.

      Quantum cryptography, at least in this application, only uses the quantum network to exchange KEYS to conventional symmetric crypto.

      The same crypto algorithms are used, this is just a "secure" method of key exchange. PKI was invented because of the problem of exchanging keys securely -- this is just a fancy way of doing the same thing.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re:Patents.. UCK by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Diffie-Hellman -- US patent 4200770
      The SHA-1 algorithm is not patented, but many uses of the algorithm are.
      Do your reading.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    11. Re:Patents.. UCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here ya go:

      N=1

    12. Re:Patents.. UCK by xyzzy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The point of quantum cryptography is not to make the crypto unbreakable, but to make attempts to eavesdrop on it detectable.

      The network consists of fibre optic cables over which SINGLE PHOTONS are transmitted back and forth between "Alice" and "Bob". If anyone is trying to spy on you -- poof, your bits disappear, and you notice.

      The actual crypto that's used on the network is fairly normal. The quantum part protects the key exchange.

    13. Re:Patents.. UCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not all the laws, just P != NP

      You should add, "in specific cases, for specific mathematical operations, as far as we know or anyone will admit, and as long as the users of said encryption adhere to correct operating procedures, use strong keys which are not generated according to a guessable or calculable pattern, and the security of the cryptosystem itself is not compromised."

      The mathematics of Enigma looked very ugly until the Allies got a model, found some weaknesses, developed some powerful approaches to the problem, exploited operator error, and used a lot of brute force. Then it was just possible to get enough to be useful. On the other hand, the generally similar US machine, which the Germans never cracked, was used with some modifications into the '60s.

    14. Re:Patents.. UCK by s88 · · Score: 3, Informative

      P != NP is not a law; it is only suspected to be true and remains an open problem, not yet proven.

  2. Lots of DARPA projects doing network stuff... by tcopeland · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...one of the DARPA IXO programs, Cougaar, has developed a fair number of message transport techniques over the last few years. Good times.

  3. What's wrong with IPSEC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess IPSEC or plain ol' SSH tunneling is more difficult to understand than quantum mechanics.

  4. Little more explanation please by koniosis · · Score: 3, Funny

    They say that because viewing a photon causes its properties to change you can tell if a message has been evesdropped, which is nice, but what good is that if you just sent the launch codes for a nuclear warhead? Hmmm... well George the codes were intercepted and the missles launched, but erm... we KNEW that it had happened!! No, just kidding, can someone explain why this is such a good thing, does it render that data unreadable or something, how does it work, the article is pretty bare, thanks in advance.

    --
    I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did :(
    1. Re:Little more explanation please by 14erCleaner · · Score: 5, Informative
      Essentially, they use the photons to transmit a one-time pad, which is then used to encrypt the actual message (as I understand the press release, anyway). They notice if anybody intercepts their key transmission, and then don't use it at all.

      This scheme might be subject to denial-of-service attacks by eavesdroppers, but I'm sure they've thought of that in their network design. Probably they can send the keys via alternate routes in case of interruption of a link.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    2. Re:Little more explanation please by JamesD_UK · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you still have the problem of working out how to exchange the public key and know that it has not been interfered or tampered with during transit. Quantum Encryption can be more correctly thought of as Quantum Key Exchange. It provides a means of transfering keys together with the knowledge of whether that key has been intercepted in transit or mot.

  5. Stupid question by JessLeah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know the theory is that quantum encryption is totally secure, as observing the data in transit actually changes it.

    Can someone please explain how on earth this works?

    1. Re:Stupid question by YetAnotherName · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check the Wikipedia my dear.

      Or alternatively, see this (goatse-free) image.

    2. Re:Stupid question by ajayg · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...as observing the data in transit actually changes it

      Quantum mechanical systems, unlike classical systems, can exist in a superposition of states. A classical bit for example, can only be either 0 or 1, while a quantum bit, or qubit, can exist as both 0 and 1 at the same time with some probability. Hence, when you 'observe' a quantum system, the system is forced to be (I won't use the word collapse here!) in a new state consistent with the apparatus or observable you used to observe it. That's an oversimplified explanation. Go to the tutorials section at the Cambridge Quantum Computing website for more tutorials and simple reading on how this stuff works, including some very cool articles by Artur Ekert, who independantly discovered quantum crypto

  6. Couldn't you eavesdrop by creating entanglement... by Assmasher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...pairs at some point during the transmission (for instance when pumping the signal strength over distance)? Observing the entangled photon(s) would not change the originals...

    --
    Loading...
  7. Misspelling in link in article by ajna · · Score: 2, Informative

    Harvard should link to http://www.harvard.edu/ or http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ if you want the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (the undergraduate institution that everybody loves) not "hardvard.edu".

  8. What's your threat model? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before I can get excited about quantum crypto, I want to know what attacks real networks suffer from and how quantum crypto prevents them.

    1. Re:What's your threat model? by lancomandr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The traffic on conventional networks can be passively or actively observed and recorded, often without the communicating parties noticing. This apparently cannot happen with quantum communication because if a photon is observed in transit, its state changes and hence the eavesdropping is obvious to the communicating parties.

      --

      "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  9. Quantum Encrypted Network? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2, Informative

    While technologically do-able, I'm uncertain as to whether this will succeed in the commercial world.

    I think we'll all just have to wait and see.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  10. Interdimensional Routers by Frigid+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great, so now if my router goes down my boss won't say "The internets gone!" Instead he'll say:
    "Holy Fuck! There's a giant squid crawling out of a rip in space-time near the water cooler!"

    --
    "It's all just meme meme around here"
  11. Simple explanation by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well you see, the network is protected in this way - whenever you make an attempt to observe traffic on the network, you get scratched by a very angry cat whose position is superimposed with your own by way of quantum fluctuation. As there are an infinite number of cats, theoretically there are enough cats to scratch any number of would-be interlopers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Rejoice! by Omicron32 · · Score: 4, Funny

    P2P filesharers everywhere have just creamed themselves.

    1. Re:Rejoice! by Jahf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just because you know someone hasn't intercepted your message doesn't mean the person you -sent- it to wasn't undercover.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
  13. I've been wondering. by Retep+Vosnul · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been reading (snippets) about this subject for... well just as long as /. has been covering it. But I understand that the tapping of this data means that the information is lost . Isn't this the perfect dos attack ? ( just thought I'd plant a silly question )

    --
    -- forget /. It's gone.
    1. Re:I've been wondering. by Woy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well if you have access to the media, you might as well do the old Big-Axe-D.O.S. attack on the cable.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
  14. Buckaroo by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    John Bigboote: We've had our chance. Your Overthruster's for shit. We're lost.

    Lord John Whorfin: One more word out of you, Big-booty...

    John Bigboote: BIG BOO-TAY. TAY. TAY.

  15. It's for the governments. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Funny

    So that the head of state can surf for porn in complete security.

    --
    Deleted
  16. How does this work? by logicnazi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they are using entagled photons it seems they can't ever use a repeater or amplify the signal. How do they get this to cover any reasonable distance...or do they just send a whole bunch of photons knowing some will get lost...if so I wonder how low the bit rate is.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  17. Probably? by tbjw · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is probably funded under DARPA's Quantum Information Science and Technology Program.

    Because the more accurately we know the funding the less accuratly we know the results?

    Truly this is quantum computing.

    1. Re:Probably? by mendepie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Due to the Quantum nature of this project if we knew who funded it, that information would be disrupted (and someone else would claim to have funded it)

      --

      Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?

  18. And the first quantum-encrypted message was: by jlowery · · Score: 2, Funny

    "What hath Heisenberg wrought?"

    --
    If you post it, they will read.
  19. Re:that's all well and good... by mdecerbo · · Score: 2, Informative
    what about a man in the middle attack? [...] How can you tell...?

    Answers to lots of your questions at quantum.bbn.com, which is the actual document repository used by the development team. I think it's pretty cool that they make so much material publically available. There's also an overview linked from the BBN homepage.

  20. The encryption is never the problem... by JasonB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although this is taking a page out of the Good Book by Bruce Schneier: The encryption algorithm/mechanics is never the weak link. There have been robust encryption algo's around for a very long time now.

    When was the last time a security breach occured that was the result of someone brute-forcing an encrypted message or key?

    The end-to-end system is what matters, as always. A keystroke sniffer installed via spyware is a vastly more economical approach to breaking an encrypted message. Which is exactly what happened to Half-Life 2, remember?

    This 'quantum crypto' can ensure that the integrity of the encryption was not breached while in-transit...but then some goober will accidentally leave his WinXP laptop at some airport security screening location and POOF! there goes your unbreakable security.

    1. Re:The encryption is never the problem... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      .but then some goober will accidentally leave his WinXP laptop at some airport security screening location and POOF! there goes your unbreakable security.

      No, the levels of loss are different.
      When the laptop is stolen by enemies, they gain access to all data on the laptop, which gives them a password they can use to view data the rest of your organization is currently transmitting... OR to decrypt any data they've logged you transmitting before.

      If the organization used QC, that last threat is taken away. The damage from a compromised password is reduced, because the spies can't revist any old wiretap logs- for wiretapping QC is impossible.

      If you are transmitting data across the internet using any kind of encryption besides OTP, then somebody can be sniffing it to a log. 50 years later, he can brute-force it with a Beowulf cluster of 40 terahertz cellphones. QC is immune to that too.

      So if you're paranoid that a future historian will try to open your email, look into QC.

  21. A few flaws in the system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    After reading the article (yeah, yeah, I know, this is /. - what was I thinking?) a couple of things jumped out at me.

    Patent-pending BBN protocols pave the way for robust quantum networks on a larger scale by providing "any to any" networking of quantum cryptography through a mesh of passive optical switches and cryptographic key relays. Well, well... in previous posts, Assmasher and logicnazi noted the problem with repeaters and routers. It sounds like they are using passive switches, that is, purely optical switching (lenses, say) rather than "optical to electrical, do the switching, and back to optical". When that fails, they use a "cryptographic key relay" (I haven't found out what one of those is yet, but I'm guessing that it's a tamper-resistant harware gizmo that supposedly can handle cryptographic material securely).

    Well, this is neat, but it's going to be a lot harder to build a network this way. Optical routers (purely optical, no converting to electrical) are pretty expensive. And every place you can't use an optical router or you need a repeater, you also need a cryptographic key relay.

    And after all that, it's still going to be easier to compromise an endpoint or a cryptographic key relay, or to use ARP poisoning to set up a man-in-the-middle attack (what good is all that spiffy quantum crypto if the router routes it to the wrong recipient?)

  22. Re:Couldn't you eavesdrop by creating entanglement by assaultriflesforfree · · Score: 2, Informative

    To answer several questions at once, the short answer about how it works is a consequence of the uncertainty principle: when you observe a photon (or any particle, for that matter), you have to interact with it in some way. When you do that, you change some of its properties.

    "Observing the entangled photon(s) would not change the originals..."

    Not exactly true. Look into the EPR experiment and what's known as "spooky action." It turns out acting on one entangled photon instantaneously (faster than light) affects its partner. For what you're saying, though, this doesn't really matter, as no information can be transmitted this way (luckily). However, entangling photons requires letting them interact, which will disrupt the original.

  23. Low information content... by Shardis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's amazing how low the information content is in this - especially considering how much some people are getting whipped up and making sweeping generalizations.

    How many qbits? What kind of bandwidth? All optical point to point or switched? Transmission distance? What materials are being used for transport?

    I'd love to know how many qbits they're playing with here to at least have a minor clue as to where the SOTA is...

  24. Objectivity by freejung · · Score: 2, Informative
    Basically, Quantum Mechanics destroys the classical distinction between the observer and the system to be observed. In quantum mechanics, it is impossible to observe a system without affecting it.

    For instance, if you measure the polarization of a photon, which was previously in a superposition of polarization states, in some sense you have created the new polarization of the photon, you have made it be what you measured it to be. So if I send you a diagonally polarized photon, and you measure it straight up and down, after it passes through your measuring device it will be purely straight up or straight down, whichever you measured it to be. So if somebody taps the line, we will be able to tell, because they will change the polarization of the photons I send you and you will get gibberish.

    This is of course a bit simplistic, but that's the heart of the matter. Objectivity is dead. You are part of the system. If you observe it, you will inevitably have an effect on it. It's kind of cool.

    The neat thing about this is that, assuming QM is correct, there is no way to circumvent it with new technology or more powerful computers or anything else. No matter how cool your tech is, you can't observe a system without changing it.

  25. Dumb headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please try to get headlines right.

    This is not quantum encryption. Photon entanglement simply allows the recipient to detect if someone was listening. It's much like a signature, only stronger (signatures only go bad if someone tries to modify the data; quantum state of entangled photons changes if anyone even looks at the data).

    You don't want to send critical information over such a link. You use that link to send a symmetric encryption key. Then you use crypto.

    Eve, a passive MITM (WITM), can prevent you from ever using crypto by keeping the link tapped. You keep sending crypto keys across, but each time you realize they've been compromised. You cannot get anywhere in that situation unless you use public key crypto, at which point the quantum-entangled nature of the link gets you no extra security.

  26. What about idQuantique? by ggravier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't all this what idQuantique ( http://www.idquantique.com/ ) has been working on and has products for, for a couple of years now?