[145254] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Quantum Key Distribution: the bad idea that won't die...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eugen Leitl)
Thu Apr 22 13:53:35 2010
X-Original-To: eugen@leitl.org
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:35:22 +0200
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
To: John Lowry <jlowry@bbn.com>, cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net
In-Reply-To: <4D9DBB1D-12DB-4183-88F0-EEC2F7DAC8FD@bbn.com>
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:46:18AM -0400, John Lowry wrote:
> My own speculation is that the security community and its interests are
> perhaps a bit broader than than some members wish it were.
>
> If you want to see some interesting physics that represents unexpected
> results relevant to communications (and comes from entangled QKD research)
> then take a look at: http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v81/i2/e023835
This is interesting. However, even if you can use LoS up to LEO,
the question is of what the added value of a (supposedly, trend
in QC state cloning attacks is there) tamperproof exchange is over
traditional cryptography.
I agree with Perry that it solves a non-problem.
> There is a human-readable summary at: http://focus.aps.org/story/v25/st7
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
