Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Totally Secure Non-Quantum Communications?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the i-wouldn't-use-the-word-totally-yet dept.

An anonymous reader writes "TEES is reporting that Dr Laszlo Kish, an associate professor at Texas A&M, has proposed a 'classical, not quantum, encryption scheme that relies on classical physical properties -- current and voltage. He said his scheme is absolutely secure, fast, robust, inexpensive and maintenance-free and relies on simultaneous encrypting of information by both the sender and the receiver.' The scheme uses properties similar to Johnson noise along with Kirchoff's Law to provide what he hopes to be an easier method of secure communications. Arxiv also has the full text [PDF Warning] of the paper."

13 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. A lesson for venture capital by Dster76 · · Score: 4, Funny

    From TFA:

    Kish said that the dogma so far has been that only quantum communication can be absolutely secure and that about $1 billion is spent annually on quantum communication research.

    I guess the quantum bubble is about to burst.

    1. Re:A lesson for venture capital by LoveShack · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess the quantum bubble is about to burst.

      Well, it both is and isn't.

    2. Re:A lesson for venture capital by ettlz · · Score: 2, Funny
      I mean, if you're trading sensitive info, you ought to be able to have each other's IPs.

      If I were paranoid, think I'd rather exchange CDs at a nondescript restaurant in Prague!

  2. Interesting.... by DigitalReality · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm shocked.

    1. Re:Interesting.... by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Currently it would seem there is some resistance to your pun.

    2. Re:Interesting.... by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOL Watt?

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:Interesting.... by Hokkage · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't have the capacity.

    4. Re:Interesting.... by Kuciwalker · · Score: 0, Funny

      Proof by induction?

    5. Re:Interesting.... by Dracophile · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ohm my god, that was revolting.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    6. Re:Interesting.... by RobinH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Currently it would seem there is some resistance to your pun.

      But you must admit it does have potential. :)

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  3. So this is what I've been hearing on the CB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think that secret agencies have been doing this for years. What else could be the purpose of all of the gibberish I've hear on the CB band? Random speach modulated by a variable resistor. It really fooled everybody.

  4. Re:Padlock by Via? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 3, Funny

    they have about as much to do with each other as a shoe and a condom (both are pieces of "clothing").

    In my case... they both cover a foot

  5. Re:I can break that! by eluusive · · Score: 2, Funny
    His PhD on solid state physics makes him an as good criptography expert as my current grad on computer vision (at most). Want a proof? Read my post, his proposal is at least as flawed as quantum criptography.
    I read your post. His PhD is solidstate physics makes him more than qualified to talk about this sort of thing. You on the other hand are NOT. You don't even know what cryptography means OR how to spell it. This has nothing to do with cyphers and everything to do with setting up a physically secure communication link. Stop pretending to be an expert, and let real scientists do their work.