Slashdot Mirror
Schneier Calls Quantum Cryptography Impressive But Pointless
KindMind writes "Bruce Schneier writes in Wired that quantum cryptography, while an awesome technology, is actually pointless (that is, of no commercial value). His point is that the science of cryptography is not the weak point, but the other links in the chain (like people, etc.) are where it breaks down."
He's too old to become a player in it, and maybe not even smart enough. Time for retirement Bruce.
...but as soon as I release my algorithm which factors the products of large prime numbers in log(n) time, they will be begging for quantum crypto.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It has been and still is true that adept social engineering can break any security scheme, due to the vulnerability of the people involved. However, saying that it is pointless is about as valid as saying that the exploration of outer-space is pointless.
I don't think I need to explain that any further to this crowd.
Of blankness, I know nothing.
Yes, I was thinking of putting a lock on my front door, but then I thought "Fuggit, I'll just forget to lock it sooner or later, so why waste the money?"
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think your analogy is a little bit off. You've got a front door with a standard lock, a dead-bolt, two chains, and a huge rock sitting behind it for security. Now you're faced with a decision whether or not to upgrade your dead-bolt to a super-duper-heavy-duty-dead-bolt. But, since your wife leaves the garage door wide open 4 days a week and no amount of persuasion will convince her to stop, the decision not to upgrade seems like a no-brainer.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I think that having one less cause of defect during a transmisson by completly ruling out that data could either be unknowingly viewed, intercepted or altered by a middleman is a value not to be underestimated. It is certainly not pointless.
As far as I know, Switzerland already successfully tested it during last year's elections by transfering voting data from a few selected stations to the voting headquarters. Given all the problems with voting machines, that's a quite obvious area of application. However any data might change after the votes, it was not during that transmisson.
Bruce has said this dozens of times before this, and he's right. Quantum Cryptography (or alternatively, Quantum Key Distribution) has no commercial application today, outside of (maybe) a few paranoid and high-security government applications. But the latter can hardly be much of a commercial application, since the existence of a large government market would send a strong signal that governments aren't confident in existing cryptographic algorithms. That would be a bad signal to send.
Furthermore, QKD networks have issues including side channel attacks, where the machinery for transmitting/receiving photons actually leaks information via EM emissions, measurable power consumption, or even sound. In fact, one of the big issues they've had in research networks is that historically the transmission machinery has been noisy as hell.
Which is worse: a password that you can remember, or changing passwords every 30/60/90 days to a new password such that you can never keep up, and thus need to write it down *somewhere*?
Sometimes, the very processes intended to make us more secure (by forcing a password change regularly) instead make the entire system less secure (because "I forgot my password" too many times and you'll end up out of a job, so better to write it down than to lose your job!).
Sorry, just griping about new policies at $work.
Er...
"Bruce Schneier knows the state of Schroedinger's cat?"
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Quantum encryption seems to fill a very particular niche (point to point communications) and doesn't seem to apply well to common encryption use cases (SSL , email encryption etc).
If public key encryption is broken, quantum encryption isn't going to be a good replacement for it for most things.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I don't know, I remember 20 years ago in grad school (damn I'm getting old) people were doing cutting edge research on non-linear optic materials, sure to be the next thing allowing truly optical computers. Worked nice in the lab, and I still haven't seen an optical transistor in any advanced computer I'd bought since. Quantum computing has to make the step from the lab to the usable machine before I start buying into it's amazing predicted powers.
Plus, their power is only predicted to be amazing against our current popular algorithms, if I have to bet of what's easier, coming up with a new algorithm that is not susceptible to quantum computing brute force attacks or making a quantum computer work, my bet is on the former.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
Don't you think that the optical fiber you're dragging behind the sub will be a dead giveaway?
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
It isn't a new algorithm, it's a secure method to share a secret. You use the photon states to establish a shared secret and then used that shared secret as the key for a one-time pad (which is unbreakable). No one can eavesdrop the key exchange because quantum mechanics prevents that, and no one can break the one-time pad used for transmission of the actual payload over conventional lines, because it is mathematically unbreakable.
It is rather pointless to argue that there is no use for quantum cryptography because the current methods of distributing keys are strong enough for most users and the weakest link is usually somewhere else. If some companies, agencies, etc. decide to adopt an expensive quantum physics-based key distribution system, they will probably know quite well why they are putting money into it. You surely know that some IBM chap once said "There is a world market for about five computers." Fine. Nowadays, there is a world market for about five billion computers, but that's not the point. The point is that back then some companies were not reluctant to develop computers for that small market, and so are the folks who develop quantum key distribution systems today. Who knows, maybe it'll be commonplace technology in a few decades.
where's all that Karma?
...is actually pointless (that is, of no commercial value)...
It's an interesting definition of "pointless" he's got there; symptomatic of the ultra-capitalistic mindset that has just been demonstrated to be far from optimal by the current financial crisis. Look at it this way: He is saying that the only thing that matters in the world is whether you can make a profit. This is the ideological basis for such things a the lack of regulations that have brought us the crisis; it is also the reason why making a fast profit has been giving priority over long-term financial stability in so many companies, banks not least.
Apart from that - basic research is not pointless, even if there are no short-term profits to be made. Basic research is necessary because we are not able to tell what we are going to need to know in the future - take the early research into quantum mechanics. It was basic research, utterly pointless according to this definition, but we wouldn't have semiconductors today, and thus no PCs nor the endless numbers of electronic gadgets we have now, were it not for that "pointless" research.
It really is time to stop dreaming about "the market" as something magical that will sort everything out for us without requiring us to think and take responsibility.