[8364] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Fwd: from Edupage, December 22, 2000
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben Laurie)
Wed Jan 3 10:37:15 2001
Message-ID: <3A534650.49A33F45@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:33:36 +0000
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jaap-Henk Hoepman <hoepman@cs.utwente.nl>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jaap-Henk Hoepman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:03:40 -0800 David Honig <honig@sprynet.com> writes:
> > At 10:27 PM 1/1/01 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> > >Did this slip between the cracks in holiday season or has it already been
> > >discussed here ?
> > >
> > >Udhay
> >
> > Its just yet another 'secure' scheme that uses quantum theory
> > (here, discrete photons; elsewhere, entangled photons)
> > to detect or prevent leaking bits.
> >
> > More elegant than gas-pressurized, pressure-monitored 'secure' cables, but
> > the same idea.
>
> Except that eavesdropping on the quantum key distribution channel is _always_
> detected (by `laws of nature'), which is not true for these pressure-monitored
> cables.
I thought that detection in quantum systems was probabilistic?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
