Slashdot Mirror


China Plans To Launch the World's First 'Unhackable' Quantum Communication Network (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes Phys.org: China is about to launch the Jinan Project, the world's first unhackable computer network, and a major milestone in the development of quantum technology... the network is planned to be fully operational by the end of August 2017... By launching the network, China will become the first country worldwide to implement quantum technology for a real life, commercial end. It also highlights that China is a key global player in the rush to develop technologies based on quantum principles, with the EU and the United States also vying for world leadership in the field.

The network, known as a quantum key distribution (QKD) network, is more secure than widely used electronic communication equivalents. Unlike a conventional telephone or internet cable, which can be tapped without the sender or recipient being aware, a QKD network alerts both users to any tampering with the system as soon as it occurs. This is because tampering immediately alters the information being relayed, with the disturbance being instantly recognisable. Once fully implemented, it will make it almost impossible for other governments to listen in on Chinese communications... It will be the world's longest land-based quantum communications network, stretching over 2,000 km.

72 comments

  1. It's heartening to see by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that the Chinese government finally appreciates the benefit of communication free of surveillance.

    1. Re:It's heartening to see by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      that the Chinese government finally appreciates the benefit of communication free of surveillance.

      The Chinese government has limited interest in monitoring private individual-to-individual and commercial communications that would use this technology. They are mostly concerned with one-to-many platforms such as social media, that can be used to spread incorrect thinking, rile up the masses, and promote disharmony.

    2. Re:It's heartening to see by gtall · · Score: 1

      More accurately, the Chinese government is interested in monitoring anything that might threaten to reveal their toy Communist government is run by a bunch of thugs.

    3. Re:It's heartening to see by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the opposite is true. The Chinese government is more interested in intimidation than censorship. They try to emphasize the thuggery rather than hide it. Instead of just subtly deleting offending social media posts, the posts are often edited to replace or modify violations with warnings, to send a clear message to both posters and readers that "we are watching you".

    4. Re: It's heartening to see by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      nothing is unhackable.

    5. Re: It's heartening to see by indio007 · · Score: 0

      Social engineering FTW!

    6. Re: It's heartening to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get lost, SJW, back to herding your capitalist sheeple.

    7. Re:It's heartening to see by xtronics · · Score: 1

      BS - the Chinese gov is a bunch of thugs no different than Russia or Saudi - Nice people do go into government - anywhere.

      We would be much better off without elections - picking the legislaters by a random draw of tax payers.. The one party system has failed China - as it is now failing the US (Demopublicans).

      I've talked with Chinese students here for over 30 years - it is pure propaganda that they don't do slave labor - physically hitting workers is common. There is a serious problem with corruption in that those that survived the 'crazy time' in the '80s did so by grabbing what ever they could. Honest people starved to death. Not a culture I would want to live in.

    8. Re:It's heartening to see by xtronics · · Score: 1

      Nice people do NOT go into government - anywhere.[typo]

  2. Couldn't be more ironic by tomxor · · Score: 1

    From a government who wants total control over all communication.

  3. Not much information, by jcochran · · Score: 2

    but the name is fairly revealing. And as typical, the media over states its capability.
    quantum key distribution (QKD) - Strongly implies that the network will be used for distributing cryptographic keys. Which makes sense since the bandwidth is likely to rather limited. And that means that the actual messages using those keys are subject to possible decryption. But still a very impressive accomplishment.

    1. Re:Not much information, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "media" also forgot to mention that certain segments of the US military has been using QKD for a few years now. Chances are this is what drove the Chinese to start using the technology in the first place. Why the author thinks the Chinese are breaking new ground to lead the rest of the world is a mystery. China saves an enormous amount of money by out sourcing every aspect of their technology R&D to the US and others. Any company wanting access to the Chinese domestic economy to sell their product must first hand over any IP on the technology they wish to sell inside the country. Any foreign company wanting to take advantage of China's cheap manufacturing services also need to hand over the related IP before being allowed to do so. This effects a lot of companies but Apple has all but given China every single piece of their IP over to the Chinese government in return for market access.

    2. Re:Not much information, by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Any foreign company wanting to take advantage of China's cheap manufacturing services also need to hand over the related IP before being allowed to do so.

      I have personally negotiated with Chinese CMs and there was never any such requirement. In fact there were many times where we took steps to ensure we retained our IP, e.g. we had the CM flash rudimentary firmware to test the hardware, with the real firmware flashed in-house later. Obviously some IP had to be sent so they could actually make the thing, but that's true no matter where your CM is based.

      Maybe this can happen with very large companies where the Chinese government feels its worth it, but your claim that "any foreign company" must hand over all related IP is just not true.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    3. Re: Not much information, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least in my typical news apps and aggregators, the chinese advancements in quantum cryptography were making it seem that the all others were light years behind, i guess its that whole r&d forilitary takes years to tri kle imto.civ applications.

    4. Re: Not much information, by 0ptix · · Score: 1

      China is at the for front of QKD research since sometime now. E.g. their collaboration with Zeilingers team have repeatedly produced world records in implementing QKD in practice.

    5. Re:Not much information, by xtronics · · Score: 1

      BS - they don't care until there is a big money flow - then the party-member supervisors will see that things happen correctly.

      Anyway - a huge amount of the IP in China was stolen.

    6. Re:Not much information, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge amount? Try staggering majority...

    7. Re:Not much information, by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Did you ignore my last paragraph? It looks like you ignored my last paragraph...

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  4. 1,379,000,000 by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    disturbances

  5. Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad to see physicists employed, but this is a wasteof money. We are nowhere near this sort of thing being practical. We should be working on technology such as improved batteries, quantum computers, and fusion energy. All three of those have a practical path to success.

    1. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All research should be into producing makeup for dogs. That's where the money is.

    2. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technology is already in commercial use last I heard. The summary just claims otherwise. That said, the Chinese link will probably be the longest ground based connection as stated, and it does make sense to implement it if their goal is any kind of financial stability and security in the country.

    3. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are nowhere near this sort of thing being practical.

      Shhh! It's to our advantage to let them think it works.. You know, like we did with the krauts.

    4. Re: Waste of money by 0ptix · · Score: 1

      QKD is a heck of a lot more practical than any of the research prpgrams you mentioned... given the ever growing improtance of (and failures in) imfo sec. I was say developing better tools for that field is a pretty worthy goal.

    5. Re: Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking LOL :)

  6. Unhackable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unhackable? Sounds like they're issuing a challenge. Usually when statements like this are made, they usually result in the supposedly unhackable system being hacked pretty quickly. I predict this will be hacked quickly as well.

    1. Re:Unhackable? by grahammm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably unhackable in the same way as the Titanic was unsinkable.

    2. Re:Unhackable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the way that Titanic, the movie, was unwatchable. Seriously. People thought that was a good movie!??!! After the first 30 minutes, I thought I was in the wrong movie theater, and watching National Geographic. And then it all went downhill from there.

    3. Re:Unhackable? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Smart humans have learned how to "cheat" their way around quantum limitations before... I imagine it will eventually happen with surreptitiously intercepting quantum communications as well.

      But, in any case, attacking the end points is always an option.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Unhackable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still haven't seen. Thanks for not ruining the ending, can't wait to see what happens!

    5. Re:Unhackable? by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      It depends on what they mean when they say that. If the "network" part of their unhackable network is only the part that distributes the keys, and not the part the contains the data that the keys are intended to be used to protect, that will be much harder to hack. Also, if the "unhackable" part of their unhackable network refers only to something done with only electronic access, and not something done with physical access or social engineering of the network operators, then the hacking will also be harder. Similarly, I might have an unhackable network at home, between two desktop computers connected to one another by an ethernet cable and connected to nothing else.

    6. Re: Unhackable? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Downhill? I thought it went under water.

    7. Re: Unhackable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaaannd its hacked.

    8. Re: Unhackable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some ways the physical hacking is the harder part ( network cable sniffing ) . The rest seems to generally be business as usual .

    9. Re: Unhackable? by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      and that linux promisses no viruses: ie IBM.

    10. Re: Unhackable? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Now that you mention it... that would make it easier for it to jump the shark.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re: Unhackable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I PROMISE not to cum in your mouth.

      => APK

    12. Re:Unhackable? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Dude... you missed the boobies!

    13. Re:Unhackable? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Unhackable? Sounds like they're issuing a challenge. Usually when statements like this are made, they usually result in the supposedly unhackable system being hacked pretty quickly. I predict this will be hacked quickly as well.

      The laws of physics preclude you sampling the signal without it being noticed by the intended recipient. Simple as that.

      Getting around it would be... "non-trivial".

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  7. Unackable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I have bridge in London to sells.

  8. Useless against local or remote root kits by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    If the data is being written via a "network" stack, it's vulnerable to root kits on either end of the communications. It's also useless against the "Great Firewall of China", which forces access to through Chinese government owned or controlled proxies to control or monitor specific content at whim.

    1. Re: Useless against local or remote root kits by 0ptix · · Score: 1

      Whats ur point? No secure communication system is ever going to be secure in those adversarial models... QKD or otherwise.

    2. Re:Useless against local or remote root kits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the system for protecting data while it travels on your secure network only protects data while it travels on your secure network. Fucking tool.

    3. Re: Useless against local or remote root kits by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Just please, don't mistake it for "completely secure communications" because one portion of the data flow is protected. This is _China_ publishing it. They have a strong history of insisting on control of communications at several stages.

  9. Quantum Telephones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just in case you want to say "hello" and "goodbye" at the exact same time.

    1. Re:Quantum Telephones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aloha.

    2. Re:Quantum Telephones? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The quantum duality of "aloha" is why the first Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to King Kamehameha.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Quantum Telephones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody likes to abuse mod points.

      Bet the -1 redundant and -1 offtopic came from the same asshole.

    4. Re:Quantum Telephones? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's a nice theory, but you can spend one and only one mod point per post.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re: Quantum Telephones? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Isn't it pronounced ka......me........ha.......me........haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    6. Re:Quantum Telephones? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      I believe they already have that technology in Hawaii.

  10. Not quite that secure by Solandri · · Score: 1

    Unlike a conventional telephone or internet cable, which can be tapped without the sender or recipient being aware, a QKD network alerts both users to any tampering with the system as soon as it occurs.

    The bitrate for quantum encryption is too slow to actually use it to encrypt the data you're transmitting. Instead, you use it to encrypt a key which you transmit to the recipient. The data is then encrypted via standard cryptography using that key - basically a one-time pad. That's why it's called Quantum Key Distribution. SSH and I believe OpenVPN do the same thing.

    So someone evesdropping in on the key distribution would be detected. But there's nothing to stop someone from capturing the encrypted data stream, then getting a copy of the distributed key after the QKD happens (e.g. if the recipient computer has been altered to transmit the key back to the attacker). At that point they can use the key to decrypt the data stream after the fact. In other words, the key distribution is secure, but protecting that key after it's been distributed still has the same vulnerabilities.

    1. Re: Not quite that secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's *not* a one time pad. Not even like a one time pad. That is exchanging a key for *symmetric* encryption. If it was a one time pad, nobody could crack the encryption.

  11. Unrelated news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In unrelated news, sales of large wrenches jump 500% overnight

  12. Not unhackable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the alert system now becomes the weak point.
    You just need to trick the alert system to send information that makes trusting parties believe the information hasn't changed.

    1. Re: Not unhackable by 0ptix · · Score: 1

      that's not really how QKD works. There is no seperat "alert system". Instead, by listening in the signal between end points is unavoidably altered so the end points trivially detect that a third party was eavesdropping during the key agreement protocol. That way they know not to use whatever key was produced in that QKD session. The laws of quantum mechanics guarantee that eaves dropping always causes the signal to be changed. (E.g. as far as I underatand any violation of that would contradict the no-cloning principle.)

    2. Re: Not unhackable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Still not quite right.
      If someone tries to tap in, it destroys the information. So the endpoints don't actually know someone tried to tap it, they just know the data is suddenly garbage and have to find the error source in order to fix it.

  13. The Han were first? Ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the white males being run out of tech, I'm sure the blue haired cat ladies and dindus will

  14. go gadget ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait til ISIS gets this.

  15. Can somebody explain... by fisted · · Score: 1

    ...why diffie-hellman isn't good enough?

    1. Re: Can somebody explain... by 0ptix · · Score: 1

      Long term security comes to mind. A very comon use of DH protocols is to agree on a key for encrypting content. Suppose an attacker records the public keys used in the DH session as well as the subsequent encrypted content. If in 20 years they get there hands on a powerful enough quantum computer they could go back and break the DH part, redrive the encryption key and then decrypt all recorded content.

      my question is why not use post-quantum (e.g. lattice based) key agreement instead of QKD... they r starting to b pretty practical for low bandwidth/high securoty applications but also (as far as we know) withstand quantum attacks. I guess with QKD the point is we know thay with our a complete revolution in physics past sessions will remain secure against whatever new classes of future computational devices we might create...

    2. Re: Can somebody explain... by fisted · · Score: 1

      kthnx

    3. Re: Can somebody explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason we don't use any of the so-called post quantum key exchange protocols yet is because we don't know enough about their security profiles yet. For example we don't know how hard theu are to break so we don't know the strength parameters to use (say to make it secure for 20 years). We also don't know enough about algorithms that quantum computers could efficiently execute that might radically change these numbers.

      The last thing you want to do is jump out of the frying pan and find yourself in the fire. Cryptography is inherently conservative. Anything new is suspect until it has proven itself.

      -slew

  16. the quantum in out feedback copy loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a quantum world you just use someting as fast and copu and allow it to continue

    then you have them never know when its um er hacked

  17. Two Edged Sword by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    Why do I have the feeling that this is a two edged sword? Unhackable, but why? If communication is tapped then they know immediately, but will they know who? Would all non-government approved quantum communication become illegal? Will VPN and and proxies still work? Proprietary private communication networks the government itself now holds the only key to? Good luck using Tor with this.

    1. Re:Two Edged Sword by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The bandwidth on this is too low for any of these to be a concern in the medium to long term. You need to be able to create entangled particles.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  18. Wow ok then by sylvan.martin · · Score: 1

    It is great that humans are able to accomplish this, but to me it is worrying that China will use it against the US rather than progressing mankind. Politics and countries not getting along hinder human advancement and overall scientific progress.