Slashdot Mirror
Growing Diamonds for Better Information Security
hip2b2 writes "NetworkWorld is running an article that describes how a University of Melbourne research group is developing technology to make fiber optics communications more secure. The technology is based on Quantum Cryptography principles and requires than absolutely only one photon gets sent at any given time. Today, fiber optic systems do not send one photon at a time. They only approximate it. This makes current systems unsuitable for their secure communications technology. Therefore, the group uses artificially grown diamonds to achieve this."
...But is it SO hard to proof read this stuff.IANAGN (i am not a grammar nazi) but I got up 5 mins. ago and saw that from across the room :)
The diamond cartels wont like this.
Quantum Cryptography Field will be soon swarmed with females. INGENIUS! University of Melbourne research group just came up with an answer for the problem on this total sausage party we have going on with CS department.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Grown diamonds are literally vaporware - but chemical vapor deposition is the interesting and relatively cheap way to do it. The old cheap way to make artificial diamonds was to blow things up (DuPont method), but the optical properties were no good.
Here's the actual University of Melbourne article from four days ago.
Common sense is not so common
Will it not increase DOS attacks, if the attacker's aim is not the information theft?
hilarious
Now I can buy some of these cables without my wife hounding me for justification.
There's a few companies growing gem quality diamonds. Gemesis, Chatham Created Gems and Apollo. Gradually as production increases for industrial and jewelery purposes the market value of diamonds as gems will decrease.
Not that diamonds really have much value as gems anyway, have you ever tried to sell a second hand diamond ring?
Deleted
Many teenagers working a crap supermarket job remember the number 1 rule: steal from the store, you're in trouble. Well with that in mind, it's safe to say the manager of this project would be packing a serious Uzi.
Czech language for absolute beginners
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Growing Diamonds for Better Information Security
Because they'll be too busy stealing the diamonds to steal the data!
First-generation products will be for very secure transmission of secure datasets, like a bank's daily offsite backup, but could serve the commodity networking market in about 20 years, Huntington said. It's a low transfer rate but idea is not to send data [this way] but the encryption key so you don't need the same transfer rate. One of the consortium's goals is to enhance that as much as possible. If you can securely transfer the key you can transfer the rest of that data over a standard telco line, he said.
So let me get this straight. The article implies: 1) I can build a secure fiber line between two points and to transfer a key, one photon at a time; and 2) once the key is transferred, I can then use standard telco lines. If I am going to the trouble to build a custom fiber optic network between two points that works with diamond lasers, why would I use telco lines? Conversely, if I don't build my own point to point fiber for key transmission then I run the risk of man-in-the-middle stealing my keys since the middle will have repeaters which can regenerate these 'secure photons'.
I say to you, this makes no sense. Why not just put 52 keys on a thumb drive or CD (one for each week of the year) and send it via a secure courier and then use telco lines for transmission? This looks like yet another ruse to get research money under the guise of quantum cryptography.
Consider the world. Consider your picture of the world. If they are different, your picture is wrong.
Money is flowing into quantum crypto because courier-based kex is insufficient. Also, QC is intrinsically point-to-point since there's no current way to reliably switch photons. This allows you to take two black boxes and connect them with a cable 20 miles long, and you're 100% guaranteed to be able to get information from A to B without anyone being able to find it out. Could be good for, say, teleconferencing between the white house and the pentagon.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
The point of building/using a quantum channel (the fibre line) is to solve the key distribution problem, it cannot be used to send data. Why? Firstly in the protocol used for checking for eavesdroppers you end up discarding around 3/4 of the photons sent, with no way of predicting which ones, and secondly you really need to be sending random data to make it completly secure. The result is both parties end up with a random key, and you know with absolute certainty that no-one else has it. Compare with your "use a courier and a CD" method (which some places do currently use), where you cannot know if someones managed to make of copy of the CD during transport, and also cannot guarantee CD has been kepy securly (during the year (in your suggestion) its kept).
Once you have your key though, the can use the Vernam cipher (one time pad) which is provably unbreakable, to send the actual data over a standard telco line, copletly securely.
I suggest you read about quantum cryptography more (wikipedias probably good).. pretty much the entire point of it is that you cannot just intercept and resend the photons without being detected. What you can do, if each laser pulse actually contains two identical photons is split one off and keep/measure that, without being detected. Hence the importance of single photon sources (which this research is in).
> Today, fiber optic systems do not send one photon at a time. They only approximate it.
Please explain what is meant by 'approximate' in this situation.
As i understand it - the idea is to build a point to point connection between two boxes, and transfer the key really slowly, so that noone can eavesdrop ?
If something can be read, and written - it can be copied. It might be harder using this technology, but as soon as it goes global - and the devices capable of generating a single photon impulse and reading an impulse like that are available (even if for a horrific price) the strategy goes to hell.
If someone is capable of listening on a optic fiber in the present day - and im fairly certain there arent many people like that out there - whats to stop them from eavesdropping on a fiber such as this ?
To be honest - im getting the idea this is kind of pointless.
But i must say that being able to transmitt and read one photon at a time gives spectacular performance if you can controll the baud rate better (and if you can filter out and read a single photon - id say that you can).
I see nice perspectives for this technology in the future - maybe we will be able to fully use the optic fibers we already have (or get new ones, fazillions times faster).
Using this for cryptology - if you can even call it that - in this case seems just absurd.
I am curious why the quantum net itself is necessarily slow? It can't just be that 3/4 of the photos are discarded, since a normal fiber optical network already sends many more than 4 photos for each bit of information (don't they?)
Are you aiming for 'zen' or 'nonsensical' here? If I can "consider the world" in such a way that I am not really considering my own perception of it, don't I have access to the objective truth already? (Meaning that I would be basically omnipotent, and in no need of philosophical advice from random people on Slashdot.)
If someone is capable of listening on a optic fiber in the present day - and im fairly certain there arent many people like that out there - whats to stop them from eavesdropping on a fiber such as this ?
As another poster just said, it isn't about them not tapping the line, but rather that you instantly know if someone is listening in. Heck you could even automate it to shut off communication if someone taps the line.
Of course we are talking about easy DoS attacks, but this application is for those who need to communicate security at all costs. NSA, CIA, and military applications where loss of any information is intolerable and they'd rather have the line cut than risk it.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Yes, you can only send as much data as you have key (well securely anyway), but thats not the reason for only using the quantum channel (fibre) for key distribution. The point is that you need to send a completly random string of data down your channel, and then completly at random discard about 3/4 of this. So your left with a shared random key, which you can use as a one time pad to send your actual message.
The whole thing is slow (at the moment) as all the technology is very experimental and you need to send single photons, which can only be done currently using attenuated lasers. Add to that that you have to change polarisation and measurment settings at both ends of the communication between photons, so its not possible to just use standard fibre transmission equipment.
In a (perfect) OTP system, the key consists of random data(no part of it has any correlation to any other part of it), while the plaintext message obviously does not. Thus, the problem is not the bandwidth, but the fact that the quantum network can not transmit non-random data with perfect security.
The actual encrypted message is sent using a one-time pad encryption scheme over standard telco lines. This is secure because a one-time pad can be totally unbreakable if you don't have the pad (the key). So this means that the real problem lies in key distribution. Using the method you suggest (courier), there's no way to detect a man-in-the-middle attack. However, due to the nature of quantum cryptography, it is invulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, because as soon as someone begins intercepting/detecting the photons, it becomes apparent to both the sender and receiver (due to their comparison of random photon orientations after the fact). Hence, you send the impossible-to-crack message (which will probably be fairly long bit-wise) over standard transmission methods, and send the key via secure means. It's okay if the message is intercepted (it's impossible to decrypt without the key), but it's not okay if the key is intercepted.
This guy's the limit!
But the decision about what is and isn't discarded also has to be transmitted over your link, otherwise your one-time-pads won't match up, I would think?
Besides, if you're going to transmit as much key as you have message, why use two different lines at all? Why not use some currently "secure" method over the inherently secure quantum line, and not have to send twice as much data?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity." - Anonymous
Bearing in mind of course that with a one-time-pad the key is just as long, bit-wise, as the message...
"Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity." - Anonymous
Ahhh. Good point. Well, it still prevents you from needing to send twice as much data over the quantum line.
This guy's the limit!
I was aiming to point out logical inconsistencies in a person's own subjective world view. How can you reconcile "my idea is great" with "they are not using my idea" other than to assume logical inconsistences (such as: a large rich company with excellent R&D didn't think of it) and/or unlikely assumptions (such as: I'm better than them, that's why they didn't hire me) ?
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Uhm.. why couldn't one intercept that lone photon, send a copy to the attacker, then retransmit it at the other end ? How can the receiving end tell that its communication has been intercepted ? Data is data.. if I intercept your phone or data lines, but make sure the forwarded signal is identical to the original, you have no information upon which to detect my presence. It's a classic black box scenario.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Therefore, the group uses artificially grown diamonds to achieve this."
:^)
Surprisingly, the new diamond cables are still cheaper than Monster Cable.
Now, I don't think the original poster had some especially novel insight into this problem(every time Slashdot mentions quantum cryptography there is a large number of comments from people who do not actually understand the concept and are obvlivious to this), but I think your philosophy is overly defeatist. Large entities occasionally do stupid things, and as an individual one should feel free to believe that specific large entities are doing specific stupid things even if that means disagreeing with establishments that are larger than oneself. One should, obviously, be aware of the possibility of one's own views being wrong, perhaps especially so if one is disagreeing with entities of some authority on matters of fact rather than opinion(such as disagreeing with a research lab on whether or not quantum cryptography could possibly be more secure than conventional cryptography), but if one's views are carefully considered, one should be able to hold them without succumbing to such delusions of grandeur as you seem to associate opposing views with.
Indeed, most artificial diamonds today are an intense orange-yellow colour because of the nitrogen introduced during processing.
True, Gemesis makes yellow diamonds. But later this year, Apollo (SWF warning) plans to introduce jewelry featuring its colorless diamonds. De Beers is scared.
I was aiming to point out logical inconsistencies in a person's own subjective world view. How can you reconcile "my idea is great" with "they are not using my idea" other than to assume logical inconsistences (such as: a large rich company with excellent R&D didn't think of it) and/or unlikely assumptions (such as: I'm better than them, that's why they didn't hire me) ?
I also have an issue with your black-and-white statements regarding a person's subjective world view.
How does one reconcile "my idea is great" with "they are not using my idea" other than to assume logical inconsistencies (such as a large, rich company with excellent R&D didn't think of it)?
This is an interesting example. There are many examples in the tech world of "large, rich companies with excellent R&D not think of something". Look at all the "encryption" schemes that have been broken, look at media companies who think it's a good idea to sell DVDs with rootkits. At one time, we could assume that since a "large, rich company" developed a product, that the security on that product was most likely top-notch. Now, the standard response to a new product that has some sort of copy protection, encryption, etc. is "I wonder how many hours/days it will take to break that?"
Your second case is a little harder to find a concrete example that shows it's incorrect but I think I can still build a case. Yes, there are times when people are over-qualified for a position. Or their attitude overwhelms their talents and they rub the interviewer the wrong way. A super-intelligent techie may be "too much" for a team leader or manager who is looking to fill an open position. It's very possible that a "large, rich" company may bring a product to market with a feature set that is not as robust as if they had hired the "top notch guy" that they really couldn't stand during the interview. Not every company employs the "best and brightest".
I am amazed at the collection of knowledge that is presented by the readers of Slashdot. In this discussion, we have had experts on synthetic diamonds weigh-in with their commments. In other dicussions, you will find doctors, lawyers, physicists, network engineers, chemical experts, military experts, etc. It is therefore not unlikely that when a new product is introduced, someone on Slashdot may know more about to how secure that product than the people who designed it or built it. Just because a company brings a product to market does not mean that "large, rich" company has the brightest R&D people on its staff.
Well, I can think of one prime example right here.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
I suppose you could detect it while it's happening and shut down.
It works! I can't believe it! And they said imitation diamond wasn't good enough!
[there is a loud crack as Fred's imitation diamond breaks in half]
I'll say that again and again, until people listen:
Quantum criptography doesn't work!
Well, it does work on the sense that if you have a secure channel, you can use it to validate another channel. It doesn't work on the "do something usefull" sense of the word.
Now, growing diamonds are interesting, and may be usefull for lots of things. But not for quantum criptography, because QC is not usefull.
End of Rant (EOR)
Rethinking email
Quantum encryption is still vulnerable to the man-in-the-middle attack.
Let's say Alice sends the single-photon signal to Bob. But Eve intercepts the photons.
Then Eve can pretend to be Bob. She will contact Alice, and arrange a code. So now, when Alice sends out an encrypted signal, Eve will be able to read it.
You don't understand the concept. It is IMPOSSIBLE to generate these photons with the same quantum spin with your retransmission rig. It's not a matter of "we can't do this reliably yet, but someone will someday". It is mathematically impossible. Go read up on quantum on wikipedia. Or change the rules of quantum theory. Until you do, it is not possible to break into the system and retransmit the key.
1) Cryptography, and 2) Useful.
http://xkcd.com/313/
Nobody even cares to encrypt email... I believe the main obstacle to more secure communications is human, not technical.
Quantum cryptography is invulnerable to observation, but it is still vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack in which the attacker pretends to be the destination. From wikipedia:
Quantum cryptography is still vulnerable to a type of MITM where the interceptor (Eve) establishes herself as "Alice" to Bob, and as "Bob" to Alice. Then, Eve simply has to perform QC negotiations on both sides simultaneously, obtaining two different keys. Alice-side key is used to decrypt the incoming message, which is reencrypted using the Bob-side key.
This attack fails if both sides can verify each other's identity.
Identity verification is also vulnerable, and difficult, though not impossible.
I can't see how sending one photon at a time will make a system secure. Photons are not necessarily particles, they have wave properties too. So if particle domain analysis doesn't work, just use the wave domain. Have these guys never heard of the double slot experiment?
Oh well, what the hell...
I know two people on the team for this project... both of them are female. :P
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
I am more interested in "quantum entanglement" which Einstein referred to as "Spooky Action at a Distance." Assuming one could entangle particles, then manipulate and observe them, one could be theoretically build the ultimate secure communications device. Additionally, this device might possibly work at superluminal speeds. Imagine controlling a space probe on Mars without the 7 minute delay. Who knows what is possible, sub-space communication anyone? :)
As for your "Consider the world" argument. In my brief life, I have observed the world doing quite a few things which do not make sense. If I had to normalize my beliefs and observations with my perceptions of the world with the assumption that the world was always right, I would be in serious trouble.
Additionally, I have studied quantum physics and can even do the math required to derive the Schrodinger wave equations, however I think our theory on how the quantum world operates is flawed. Mankind may learn more (if the ages continue to roll on) and future physicists will look back and laugh at what we believed, just as we look back and laugh at those who believed that space was filled with "ether", that the world was flat, and that there was such a concept as absolute position and velocity in space and time. Relativitely is another concept with hurts my brain, but it appears to be true.
If you have some time, expand upon your "Consider the world..." argument.
By the time we have the technology to make "unbreakable" quantum crypto systems, we will soon after have the technology to break it.
Some of you might be interested in the author's previous article, "Growing Diamonds for fun and profit." Also, stay tuned for his upcoming article, "Blingy spinner wheels, Network Security and You."
sheesh!
It was more of an argument against people who are arrogant enough to have opinions like "my idea for a mars rover is better than nasa's, let's just stick xeons in it" or something. People who don't even consider the possibility that the entity they are criticising has already thought of whatever they propose and dismissed it.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Dunno if the system will *work* or not, but I'm sure there'll be a lot of law-making bee_ess involved (terrorism / RIAA) that'll bring down the whole system.
;)
PS: Hey! I managed to get RIAA and terrorism together
If you're for some reason stuck on the idea of natural diamonds and want to avoid the blood-price associated with them, you could also look at the growing industry of Canadian "Polar Bear" diamonds
Alpha Doggs Blog .
This is described as "The future of networking as seen through the works of university and other labs"; it's the best name for a tech blog that I've seen in a while.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
The only jewelry item with liquid commodity value is gold.
You can build the "one time pad" over a few hours and then use it over a few seconds. Basicly, the key needs to be sent fast enough to meet the average demand but the link needs to handle the spikes. There are other constrants; such as if you send both links though the same line then you can suffer a man in the middle attack but if they are on seperate networks then it's much harder.