Slashdot Mirror


Code for Unbreakable Quantum Encryption

An anonymous reader writes "ITO is running a story on NIST's latest quantum encryption key generation. From the article: 'Raw code for "unbreakable" quantum encryption has been generated at record speed over optical fiber at NIST. The work is a step toward using conventional high-speed networks such as broadband Internet and local-area networks to transmit ultra-secure video for applications such as surveillance.'"

13 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Buzzwords and Challenges. by lordsid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People really need to quit referring to anything as "unbreakable" or 100% secure. It's never going to happen. Just as making anything idiot proof, they will always build a better idiot. Saying it's unbreakable is just going to challenge someone to do it.

    --
    IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    1. Re:Buzzwords and Challenges. by duranaki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well yeah.. that's why they used those "air quotes".

  2. Change to "near" Unbreakable. by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it can be decrypted its not unbreakable. Unbreakable encryption is easy, just not that usefull if you ever want access to what you encrytped.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Change to "near" Unbreakable. by frankie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      QC is unbreakable in the mathematical sense. It's a souped-up OTP, which cannot be broken by an outside party, period. Note the word "outside". You can't install a sniffer on the wire, copy the message and decrypt it later. Aside from effectively infinite key length, with QC your intrusion will be detected in real time.

      Insider attacks (mole, rootkit, spy camera, etc) which occur AFTER reception and decryption do not count, because the encryption method has nothing to do with that.

    2. Re:Change to "near" Unbreakable. by eddeye · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Insider attacks (mole, rootkit, spy camera, etc) which occur AFTER reception and decryption do not count, because the encryption method has nothing to do with that.

      Which is exactly why this is a solution looking for a problem. No one ever breaks modern crypto when it's used correctly. Attacking the periphery of the system is orders of magnitude easier. Your resources are much better spent guarding against insider attacks than buying the next useless whiz-bang crypto device.

      --
      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
    3. Re:Change to "near" Unbreakable. by MaceyHW · · Score: 2, Insightful
      QC is unbreakable in the mathematical sense. It's a souped-up OTP, which cannot be broken by an outside party, period.

      It's not "souped-up OTP" it's just regular old OTP with a wrapper that prevents a man-in-the-middle attack. As stated in TFA:
      The NIST quantum key distribution (QKD) system uses single photons, the smallest particles of light, in different orientations to produce a continuous binary code, or "key," for encrypting information.
      This is just a system for transmitting an arbitrary-length string of bits with absolute integrity. This is both non-revolutionary and non-trivial.
  3. Physics 101 by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The NIST quantum key distribution (QKD) system uses single photons, the smallest particles of light...

    Ok, maybe I missed something back when I took QM in college, but photons are the only particle of light, aren't they? They are not the only electromagentic particle, but are the only constituents of the light we see. Or has the universe become even stranger and no one told me?

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  4. "unbreakable"? by polv0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's like giving a DEA agent in Columbia a "bulletproof" vest.

  5. from the article by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The rules of quantum mechanics ensure that anyone intercepting the key is detected, thus providing highly secure key exchange.


    What about the noise of some of the photons being lost (absorption)? The system has to be stable against it. Ergo, one can hide herself under the noise threshold.

    PS. It has been 20 years since my quantum mechanics exams.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  6. Re:One time pads are... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, the point is that your pad can be sent at a time when you have secure communication - such as on an USB drive in face to face contact. Then, you can send the message later at any time without secure communication. It's a method of shifting the moment that messages have to be sent to be a time when you can guarantee security.

  7. Re:Actual transmission? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reason you transmit the pad instead of the actual data is that the properties of the system don't prevent evesdropping, they only make it detectable. If you transmitted the actual data over the "secure" stream, someone could still intercept it. You'd know that they intercepted it, but by then it would be too late to do anything about it. However, if you transmit the pad over the secure stream you can know which bits were intercepted prior to encrypting the data and can remove those bits from the pad. NOTE: I see someone already posted something similar after I started posting, but I think this version is a bit easier to understand for someone who isn't used to quantum cryptography.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  8. Re:Unbreakable != Useful by Rumagent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It could be argued that "susceptible to DOS attacks" is present in all crypto systems, that uses public (or not so public, for that matter) transmission systems - it is trivial to distort a message regardless of whether it is encrypted or not. What you view as a vice, I would characterize as a virtue. Now, at least, you know when Eve is trying to eavesdrop.

  9. Re:Hold on just a sec... by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but it's quantum, so you can't really be sure it's secure until it's already been sent.. or something

    But seriously, what would stop someone intercepting the key, then resending it? If the original transmitter can send the key, and the receiver can receive it, why can't a repeater-station type device in the middle read the key, then send out a new duplicate?

    --
    which is totally what she said