Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Gov't May Employ a Homegrown Quantum Key System

Posted by timothy on from the lasers-spin-counterclockwise-there dept.

mask.of.sanity writes "The Australian government is trialling a new Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) system built by Aussie scientists. QKD is considered the world's toughest security because the slightest attempt to intercept the one time keys, coded into lasers at the quantum level, will disrupt the beam. The technology differs from current cryptography tech primarily because it's cheap. Well, less than the $US100k price tag of rival systems. It uses off-the-shelf networking gear instead of proprietary technology, and is built on open standards, so it's easier to install. The random key is encoded at the quantum level in the sidebeam in the phase and amplitude, or brightness and colour, of a highly tuned laser beam. The creators, who built the system in part for their Ph.Ds, said it can be used to transport the most sensitive data like critical infrastructure and secret commercial IP. The days of hand-delivered security keys are numbered."

34 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Quantum Leap by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    So... you could say the Aussie scientists have taken a Quantum Leap in cryptography for the AU?

    *rimshot*

    Thank you, I'll be here all night! Remember to tip your waitress!

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:Quantum Leap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hear that the technology is called "Key Order Assignment by Laser Application".

    2. Re:Quantum Leap by RichardJenkins · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, from what I understand the system involves strapping a key to a shark who'll swim it to the recipient. The friggin' laser shoots anyone trying to intercept it, thereby guaranteeing security.

      Sharks with friggin laser beams have become more adundant as of late, which is why they can do this so cheaply.

    3. Re:Quantum Leap by TimSSG · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some puns are just unbearable. Tim S

    4. Re:Quantum Leap by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Quantum leap: (adj.) literally, to move by the smallest amount theoretically possible. In advertising, to move by the largest leap imaginable (in the mind of the advertiser). There is no contradiction.

      - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    5. Re:Quantum Leap by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quantum leap: (adj.) literally, to move by the smallest amount theoretically possible. In advertising, to move by the largest leap imaginable (in the mind of the advertiser). There is no contradiction.

      - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary

      "Quantum Leap": (1989) Scientist Sam Beckett finds himself trapped in time--"leaping" into the body of a different person in a different time period each week.

      - The Internet Movie Database

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  2. Quoth Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The days of hand-delivered security keys are numbered

    ...but we can't tell you exactly how long you'll have to wait.

  3. Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scenario by joeflies · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In general I think that although standard key exchange methods are theoretically less secure than quantum key exchanges, at least the standard key exchange methods are a) well understood, b) tested and c) commercially supported.

    Putting highly secret documents in the hands of a technology made by college students working on PHD thesis seems to be a premature use of this technology.

    It's not the technology itself, but the implementation of the technology that I'd worry about. And cost doesn't seem to be a good reason to take a gamble.

  4. Quantum Key + Internet Filter? by Narnie · · Score: 5, Funny

    So... are the scientists that frustrated with the Aussie internet filter that they're employing a quantum key encryption system just so they can get their porn?

    --
    greed@All_Evils:~#
  5. obligatory movie quote by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "That's not encryption. THIS, now THIS is encryption."

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  6. Re:Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scena by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Worse than that. The quantum stuff is really cool, and all kinds of useful for making sure a given bit of fiber isn't being eavesdropped on; but it is only link-level security. You have to have a run of fiber directly between hither and yon for communications to be secure. With ordinary crypto, you can use public internet or untrusted network segments controlled by others, or bailing wire or whatever. That is the ultimate limitation.

  7. Great for them! by nog_lorp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now the Australian government can finally protect their communications from the myriad foreign governments trying to spy on their communications!

    Oh, wait...

    1. Re:Great for them! by ozbird · · Score: 2, Funny

      More likely, now Australian scientists can protect their communications from the proposed Internet filter.

    2. Re:Great for them! by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Guess where a great deal of the US's intelligence data is collected from. Hint: it's a large, dry country within long-range radio distance from China.

      Guess where that data gets transmitted back to the US from? Hint: several top-secret joint US-Australian bases located in various places in Central Australia (i.e. the middle of nowhere)

      And guess which country has more access to intelligence sharing with the US than any other allied nation (except for the UK)?

      Australia's geographic position means a LOT of US intelligence data either is sourced from here or flows through here. So it's in all allied countries interests to have good encryption here ;)

  8. Wait a minute... by nog_lorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It travels over fiber, and "the slightest attempt to intercept the one time keys, coded into lasers at the quantum level, will disrupt the beam".

    How do you route it to its destination? Do you need a dedicated fiber line between the source and destination for this service to work?

    Otherwise, why can't someone just, y'know, intercept it completely and then generate the same key again?

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by wdsci · · Score: 3, Informative

      Last I heard, quantum cryptography did require a dedicated line. And you can't intercept and regenerate the signal because the laws of quantum physics make it impossible to measure enough information about the beam to generate a copy of it. The way quantum cryptography works (at least this is one simple scheme), the sender of the key transmits photons that are polarized in one of 4 directions: N-S, E-W, NE-SW, or NW-SE. But when you measure the photons, you have to choose whether to make a N-S vs. E-W measurement, or an NE-SW vs. NW-SE measurement - you can't make both. And if you choose the wrong one for any particular photon, the outcome of the measurement is random (and the original orientation of the photon is lost). Although, the sender and receiver of the key will have to compare notes via non-quantum means, to see which photons they measured using the same scheme, and if you have access to both the quantum channel and the non-quantum channel, I guess you could pull off a man-in-the-middle attack.

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by TinBromide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, someone with enough knowledge as to which orientation the key will be encoded on can intercept it and generate a new photon with the same recorded information? Because, as you say, you can't record EVERYTHING about a photon at once, and you destroy it as you filter/record it, wouldn't the receiver destroy it as they filter/record it?

      I know that you use a simplified example based on the polarity of the measurements, but if a nefarious evil party had the same equipment configured the same way as the true reciever, he/she could intercept the key and generate a new photon with a passable key?

      If the distribution of the keys are based on known, shared configurations, aren't those configurations just a key used to decode/attack the secondary encryption layer of the key? (photon orientation).

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    3. Re:Wait a minute... by shadow_slicer · · Score: 5, Informative

      The key is not encoded -- it is random. Both the "sender" and receiver have no idea what the photon's characteristics are. They both flip coins to see which type of measurement to make. Then they keep the bits where they made the same type of measurement and throw away the others.

      Any intermediate party will either receive the photon (so the receiver won't) or not receive the photon (and can't measure it). Further, no intermediate party knows what measurements the sender and receiver will make so they can't make the same measurements. If the intermediary can't make the same measurements then it can't generate the same key, and can't generate a passable photon for the receiver. Assuming the sender and receiver have another channel which is secure against man in the middle attacks (though not necessarily secure against eavesdroppers), they can tell each other which type of measurements they made and know what to keep.

    4. Re:Wait a minute... by bh_doc · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suspect we differ on the definition of "intercept". If you strictly mean "capture and extract information from", then I agree. Any measurement (the "extract information" part) will collapse the wavefunction, destroying the quantum coherences and ultimately (with approaching-unity probability) being detected by the QKD scheme. However, I was using the term in the more general sense of "have some device between", in which case what I said is entirely correct. Here's why:

      Sure it's possible to intercept the quantum signal, but it is not possible to regenerate it precisely - by which I mean reproducing the original quantum state. Read up on the "no-clone theorem" - for example Wikipedia's article.

      I'm well versed in the no-cloning theorem. As such, I know why it doesn't apply here. The no-cloning theorem is in relation to making an identical and independent copy of any (a general) quantum system whilst retaining the original system. In this context it would amount to producing a duplicate signal, independent but equal to the original signal. This is not possible under the no-cloning theorem. (I'll preempt a point here, too: Entanglement is not cloning, although it can sometimes look similar.)

      But, intercepting and regenerating the signal does not necessarily involve ever having both the original and regenerated signals existing at the same time. Take an example of a kind of quantum repeater, a device that converts a photon signal into some other quantum state, say electron spin, and then converts that spin into a new photon signal. It's roughly the same idea as classical repeaters in long-distance fibre-optic communications. Now, I consider this operation to be an interception of the signal and generation of a new signal with the same information. It's a coherent process; all the quantum information in the original signal remains intact. But you can't get back the photons from the original signal, so the no-cloning theorem is not relevant. (A more detailed explanation of the workings of a quantum repeater could include entanglement, which also means no-cloning theorem is not relevent.)

      A restriction on the device is that, to function, it cannot collapse the wavefunction. That means that (at a minimum) it cannot make a projective measurement of the quantum state. Thus, it cannot make any recorded measurement on the state, because that would require making a projective measurement, which would require defining a projection basis (randomly(!), because there's no better way), which would collapse the wavefunction, which would rightly end up being detected by the QKD scheme as eavesdropping.

      So, you can have a device which intercepts and regenerates the signal, you just can't ask it any questions.

  9. Re:as long as there is no... by Toe,+The · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're forgetting how government bureaucracy works. It would be something more like:

    An interception event may have been detected. Do you wish to give permission to avoid preventing continuance?
    Acknowledge - Defer

  10. You can't read my thesis! by CrypticKev · · Score: 4, Funny
    The creators, who built the system in part for their Ph.Ds

    They will encrypt their thesis with it. If ever decrypted, their doctorates will be revoked!

  11. Re:Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scena by erbbysam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly. Is public key crypto broken enough to need to spend any money to switch over to QKD?
    For that matter is public key crypto over the internet broken?

    From the QKD guy in the article:
    "Conventional cryptography is exposed to threats from advances in computing power that provide for brute force attacks,"
    As long as you stay up to speed (ie. keeping your key sizes up to standards), I don't see how this is an issue...

  12. Okay but why? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am at a loss to understand why the Australian Government would want this standard of security. This requires a dedicated fibre so it only works over a short range and over a land line. The bulk of security issues would be with international communications (say diplomatic stuff), wireless communications (police, military etc) and office networks (the federal public service).

    But quantum won't help you in any of those cases. Oh well. I doubt I will hear if it is ever actually used.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Okay but why? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you think a government doesn't have a military, police force or diplomats.

    2. Re:Okay but why? by Cimexus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well in Canberra (capital city of Australia), most government departments in the Parliamentary Triangle (where all the major/important Government departments area) are connected by a such a dedicated fibre network, that is completely physically separated from the Internet and other public networks This is particularly the case in the defence/intelligence precinct (which is a cluster of buildings in one particular suburb).

      Interestingly I tried Googling it and couldn't find much at all. But it exists ... I've used it myself as a contractor to several AU Federal Govt. departments. So you could use this kind of encryption on a network like that I imagine.

      But yeah, this technology seems like it wouldn't have huge application outside of these rare, special types of networks.

  13. Re:Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scena by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. Is public key crypto broken enough to need to spend any money to switch over to QKD? For that matter is public key crypto over the internet broken?

    Yes. Think secret plans that can't get out, even in 20 years time.

    Can you guarantee quantum computers won't be around in 20 years time?

  14. Bigger fish to fry... by Manip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry but you have $100k and you want to increase your security by wasting it on one highly secure pipe?

    That is pretty sad. That money could be better allocated to toughen up systems or to employ spot checks on supposedly tough targets.

    The truth is that almost no security breaches are conducted by cutting lines and intercepting the traffic (with the exception of satellite communications *cough* NSA *cough*).

    Ultimately humans are the weakest part of the system, followed by the destination's security, and then last I'd say the transit between A->B.

  15. Cryptography... by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will always be vulnerable to a gun to your head and the question "What does it say?"

    Try not to forget the human side of the equation when you're quoting statistics and mathematics.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Cryptography... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Spoken like someone who has neither held a gun, nor a human head, let alone at the same time, while interrogating a cryptographer, in Australia.

      How does one answer that question with respect to a 10 gig fiber connection? How fast can you say ones and zeros?

      I'm pretty sure firearms are an OSI layer 1 problem.

      --
      THL phish sticks
  16. one time pad by F�an�ro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do not get the advantages of this system over the one-time pad.
    Is there anything this quantum key system could do that a courier carrying a terrabyte drive with a one-time pad once in a while could not?

    The quantum key may not be interceptable in theory, but you still have to trust the sending and receiving equipment not to leak anything.
    Auditing equipment advanced enough for quantum encryption sounds quite a bit harder than auditing a sealed box with a harddrive and a chip doing XORs for a one-time-pad.
    And people with the neccessary trust and clearance AND the skills in quantum physics should be harder to come by.

    Plus the bandwith of the quantum channel is low, so they are only sending the keys, and send the encrypted data by normal channels. So you also have to trust the encryption algorithm, while an OTP is provably unbreakable.

    1. Re:one time pad by OzRoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      This *is* a one time pad. This is Quantum Key Distribution. The quantum part ensures your key has not been intercepted. Once the key is recieved by the other party the actual message is encrypted by using one time pad.

      So the advantages of this over a courier is it's a hell of a lot faster and you guarantee the courier hasn't been mugged and had the pad copied.

  17. Re:All I want to know is... by Slumdog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...can I encrypt messages with freakin' laser beams attached to the freakin' heads of the freakin' sharks? >

    "Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code." -- Dave Olson

    --
    FreeBSD bounties
  18. Re:All I want to know is... by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, but like any quantum cryptography method, it's still vulnerable to a SITM (Shark In The Middle) attack.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  19. Obligatory Futurama... by Samah · · Score: 3, Funny

    Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
    http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/The_Luck_of_the_Fryrish

    --
    Homonyms are fun!
    You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.