Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

310 comments

Unexpected Consequences (5, Funny)

etLux (751445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932548)

Yes, but... what will I now need to decode my bank statements?

Re:Unexpected Consequences (2, Funny)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932718)

Yes, but... what will I now need to decode my bank statements?

You are able to decode them now??

Re:Unexpected Consequences (1)

etLux (751445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932739)



Yes.

But only 50% of the time.

Re:Unexpected Consequences (2, Funny)

Chiasmus_ (171285) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932975)

Yes.
But only 50% of the time.


Oh, well then this is simple.

In the future, your process for decoding your bank statements will work 50% of the time, but of course observing whether your bank statement has been decoded (by you) will completely undermine the decoding process.

Therefore, you will receive your bank statements in the mail, and you can leave them unopened and mathematically consider them 50% decoded.

Re:Unexpected Consequences (1)

Albin42 (773034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932736)

This you could call a real challenge to break =)
something else than our small project [daychanged.com] ...

Re:Unexpected Consequences (3, Funny)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933145)

"Yes, but... what will I now need to decode my bank statements?"

Easy! The Quantum Improbability Engine.

But... (5, Funny)

DonServo (727377) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932551)

Wouldn't checking if the transfer went through alter your balance? :-P

Re:But... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932575)

I looked in my account and found out my cat was dead.

You know the two-slit experiment? Well, its just like that
-- standard explanation for weird quantum things when you don't know the right answer.

Re:But... (5, Interesting)

blincoln (592401) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932988)

You know the two-slit experiment? Well, its just like that
-- standard explanation for weird quantum things when you don't know the right answer.

I was just reading about that last night in The Elegant Universe.

For those who haven't heard of it before, here's the experiment:

- take a wall with light shining on it from a projector.

- place a board in-between the wall and the projector that interrupts the beam of light. The board should have two vertical slits cut in it, which can be opened and closed independently of each other.

If you open just the left one, you get a vertical bar of light on the wall.

If you open just the right one, you also get a vertical bar of light on the wall, offset from the one that was there with the left one open.

Now, intuitively you would think that if you opened both at once, you would just get two vertical bars of light, but you don't. Wave interference means you get a whole bunch of light and dark vertical bars on the wall.

Here's the spooky quantum-mechanical part - the same interference effect happens even if the projector is designed to only emit one photon at a time, then wait until it has hit the wall (or the board) before sending another. You will still get the bands of dark and light.

Pretty weird, eh?

Re:But... (1)

etLux (751445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932624)



No.

But your bank would have a 50-50 chance of declaring you dead.

first post... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932554)

by quantum cryptography!

Re:first post... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932559)

OHHHH you mean first quantum FAILURE!

Unfortunately... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932557)

...I can't observe my checking account balance without lowering it.

Re:Unfortunately... (1, Funny)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932918)

It's called an account balance statement fee, and has nothing to do with quantum physics.

Quantum tracking number... (5, Funny)

gevmage (213603) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932563)

So the transaction slip presumably says:

Your transaction number has a 90% probability of being between 8765432 and 8765478.

Have a 75% nice day.

Re:Quantum tracking number... (1)

nessus42 (230320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932971)

Your transaction number has a 90% probability of being between 8765432 and 8765478.
That's assuming the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Using the Many Worlds interpretation, your bank account will be in a superposition of these different values, and then when you go to check your bank balance, your brain in will in a superposition of being rich and being poor.

I think that in the future fetching my money from the bank is going to give me a headache.

|>oug

Entangled Photons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932567)

'Entangled' and 'money transfer' might become interesting when more than one person tries to do a money transfer at the same time...

Re:Entangled Photons (5, Funny)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932599)

Please be Bill Gates, please be Bill Gates, please be Bill Gates...

When in doubt, mod +1 funny and pray

I would also pray... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932670)

if I had your face!

Re:Entangled Photons (1)

Colonel Sponsz (768423) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932946)

Please be Bill Gates, please be Bill Gates, please be Bill Gates...

I'm not so sure you'd want that...

"So Mr Professr3, I see you have just transferred USD 500,000,000 to a bank account in the Bahamas. How would you like to start paying off your debt?"

Re:Entangled Photons (2, Funny)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933091)

Well, first I'd like to secure a small loan to fly to the Bahamas... and then I'll let you know :)

Incredible (1)

CosmicDreams (23020) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932568)

An acutal real world example! Excellent

I'm uncertain... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932574)

But I think I might haev first post!

Close but not quite (-1, Offtopic)

Vlar (749162) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932607)

Looks like there are 7 posts before yours. You were 3 minutes late. Better luck next time?

Paradoxon is not a word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932579)

That is all.

FACTUM: Paradoxon *IS* a word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932625)

N:T:

My check bounced (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932591)

Due to Insufficient Cat.

Re:My check bounced (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932679)

Did you look? Because that may have caused your problem.

Re:My check bounced (1)

njchick (611256) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932928)

Now bounced checks will interfere with each other.

But (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932595)

Hitler was Austrian... and he gassed his own people!

Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle... (4, Funny)

gid13 (620803) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932602)

... there has been a bank error in your favour. Collect $200. :)

But don't delay cashing the check (1)

njchick (611256) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932957)

Otherwise the money will go to other accounts due to tunnel effect.

Proof of Concept (4, Insightful)

radoni (267396) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932603)

..but why do we need this?

The biggest hole in security is usually the people operating technology. Ever want something, call up and ask for it.

What does the ability to have uncrackable encryption do to thwart social engineering tactics?

Re:Proof of Concept (1)

cmdr_beeftaco (562067) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932693)

Right, that is why we must go after and attack all the evil-do'ers.

Re:Proof of Concept (1)

Albin42 (773034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932771)

NONO, not the evil-do'ers. waste your cpu on this [daychanged.com] instead =)

Re:Proof of Concept (5, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932775)

Firstly, the security this sort of thing provides is at a different stage in the process to anything a social attack would work on, so the two concepts are unrelated.

Secondly, even if they were related, you're appear to be suggesting we might as well not bother patching one future security hole because a different one also exists? Thats crazy. We should tackle all security risks, not just one particular one.

Lastly, socially engineered attacks are most often people giving up a PIN or forging a signature. That affects one account per attack. If a cracker gets past the sort of stage that Quantum Cryptography protects they have the opportunity to automate and reap every transaction the bank carries out.

Now which is the bigger problem?

Re:Proof of Concept (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932976)

Well, I think that all that the grand-parent is arguing is that quantum cryptography is increased security where we don't need it. One-way traps are good enough, and no-one forsees them being broken. Why do we need quantum-encrypted transactions? The money and effort is better spend developing procedures and technologies to prevent more pressing weaknesses, such as social engineering and insider fraud.

Re:Proof of Concept (1)

JDBrechtel (48222) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933075)

Because while "one-way traps" are good enough, quantum cryptography is "better". Heard of progress? Yea, we started that new crazy idea a couple of years ago.

Re:Proof of Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932982)

socially engineered attacks are most often people giving up a PIN or forging a signature. That affects one account per attack. ... Now which is the bigger problem?

I basically agree with your points. But in fairness, you must admit that just as a quantum cracker's goal would be to "reap all transactions", so would a social cracker's goal be to obtain the internal signature, password, etc. of an employee/insider with the power to reap all transactions.

Re:Proof of Concept (2, Informative)

David Hume (200499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933095)


Firstly, the security this sort of thing provides is at a different stage in the process to anything a social attack would work on, so the two concepts are unrelated.


The two different security issues are related in the way almost, if not all, issues are related. Time, money and resources. If you spend them in an effort to address one problem they can't be spent in an effort to address another.

Secondly, even if they were related, you're appear to be suggesting we might as well not bother patching one future security hole because a different one also exists? Thats crazy. We should tackle all security risks, not just one particular one.


Should we really attack all security risks at the same time when we have limited resources? To borrow an analogy from a post below, does it make sense to spend money to make an even better, super duper dead bolt when: (a) nobody has cracked, or is expected to crack, current dead bolts; and (b) there is not enough money to secure the window? I honestly don't know, what current or reasonably expected vulnerability is quantum cryptography designed to remedy? Are current systems too slow, or expected to become too slow in the future? Does it address a real problem?

Lastly, socially engineered attacks are most often people giving up a PIN or forging a signature. That affects one account per attack. If a cracker gets past the sort of stage that Quantum Cryptography protects they have the opportunity to automate and reap every transaction the bank carries out.


If true, this is a good point, but I'm not sure it is true. First, I'm not sure that there is any reasonable expectation that a cracker will get "past the sort of stage that Quantum Cryptography protects." I thought the consensus was that current systems, given a sufficiently large key, were for all practical purposes unbreakable. Secondly, while social engineering attacks may, in fact, "most often" involve "people giving up a PIN or forging a signature," resulting in a single loss, that is not necessarly true in all cases. One can readily imagine an employee being socially engineered into giving system wide acess to an "execute," "repairman," or "consultant."

It may (or may not) be the case that the money would be better and more efficiently spent on training, education, etc. to prevent socially engineering attacks. But that wouldn't be cool.

Re:Proof of Concept (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932805)

I can't believe this got a +5.

It's ridiculous reasoning.

Should deadbolts not have been developed because most people break in through windows?

Should we stop working on vaccines to deadly viruses just because most people die of heart disease or cancer?

It's called progress. People work on improving their own peice of the puzzle and the whole system improves as a whole by the sum of the efforts.

Re:Proof of Concept (1)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932818)

It proves the problem is a social engineering problem. Right now, if a teller lets someone get $500, they can claim ignorance or 'evil haxx0rz did it!'.

In the future, people can know it was the teller's fault, and levy consiquences.

Insightful? Hardly. (1)

Andorion (526481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932851)

This is a solution to a different problem. Inventing a more effective toothbrush won't get kids to brush their teeth either, but who cares?

~Berj

Re:Proof of Concept (1)

NickJacobs (22201) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933131)

Isn't one of the key benefits of quantum crypto that there's no need for key exchange because of the entanglement?

Thus, there's no key/password to ask for.

Entertaining but Not Useful (2, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933172)

Quantum crypto is an entertaining concept for securing data on locations connected by a single dedicated piece of fiber, but from a cryptographical standpoint, it's not really very useful - you can already do uncrackable crypto at much lower costs, and quantum crypto still needs you to run reliable communication protocols. It's kind of like using an armored car service to carry your credit card receipt from the front of the restaurant to the office in the back next to the unlocked door - you get a really secure feeling about how strongly you've protected the strongest link in the chain, but it doesn't do anything to help the weakest link.

So it's really about social-engineering potential customers.

You Q-bank Transfer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932604)

Was for +/- $100i

Thank you for your patronage.

Re:You Q-bank Transfer (2, Funny)

lpangelrob2 (721920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932755)

The last time I tried to use imaginary money, the government had me arrested for fraud. Well, Uncle Sam, look at me now!

Quantum Bank Transfers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932608)

Presumably, opening an account with this bank will get one "shrodinger's cat" as a new account premium?

Re:Quantum Bank Transfers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932662)

I wouldn't be so certain of that.

What about the fees (2, Funny)

GuyinVA (707456) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932613)

Sure but would they still charge a fee for using "out of our network" ATMs?

Re:What about the fees (0, Offtopic)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932836)

No fees charged for using any ATM, and any fees charged by the owners of the ATM are refunded to me at the end of the month.

I love my credit union.

trade ya (4, Funny)

theMerovingian (722983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932626)


I'll give you my entangled photons in exchange for chocolate [slashdot.org] .

Dear Prestigious Journal (5, Funny)

Letter (634816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932627)

Dear Prestigious Journal,

At the University concluded a study which finds quantum cryptography is a lot better than plain cryptography. Please FAX bank account via quantum cryptography to KWEISE MFUME at +34 79 345 8792 for full article.

Looking forward to hearing,
Letter

quantum bank transfers (3, Funny)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932641)

are only good for small change...

Re:quantum bank transfers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932813)

When my really fat aunt does a quantum bank transfer around the house, she really does a quantum bank transfer AROUND THE HOUSE!

This just in (2, Funny)

MajorDick (735308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932642)

Man arrested in connection with bank transfer fraud, he reportedly stole 1.2 million dollars using a flashlight

Complicated (3, Funny)

nycsubway (79012) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932646)

Thats some damn complicated stuff, there! I hope the technicians who fix the ATM machine know about phuton criptography. I may know how to program with code, but damned if i know how futons work!

Re:Complicated (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932711)

"I may know how to program with code, but damned if i know how futons work!"

Simple: fold the futon up when you want to use it as a couch and then fold it back down when you want to use it as a bed.

Re:Complicated (1)

nycsubway (79012) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932877)

I meant fotons! not futons.... woops!

Re:Complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932712)

"but damned if i know how futons work!"

Pretty simple really. Normally they're an uncomfortable couch, but at night you can lower the backrest to allow for an uncomfortable bed instead.

Re:Complicated (0, Redundant)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932766)

but damned if i know how futons work!

They're quite simple, really. Normaly you just lift up one end, and it converts from a couch to a bed, and push down and it changes again. Very convienent for dorm rooms, and that sort of thing.

Re:Complicated (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932939)

The proper technicians aren't hard to find. Haven't you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? I'm sure they work on this stuff.

Bullshit again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932654)

Once again, I point out that there is no such thing as quantum cryptography. It's a lie perpetuated by idiots and charlatans. All quantum "cryptography" systems require a conventional message authentication code. The whole system is no stronger than that MAC*.

*Well, against a well-funded adversary. But then, Jim Bob's House of Cryptanalysis and Live Bait isn't going to try cracking the high-end security needs these systems are shilled for.

Quantum Crypto Provably Flawed? (5, Interesting)

theLOUDroom (556455) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932674)

I'm asking this question again because it came a bit to late to the last discussion I posted it in

Is quantum crypto provably flawed?

I've seen tons of blurbs stating the the link is "absolutely" secure, but it seems that isn't really the case. [dhushara.com] (see the bottom of the page.)

What strikes me about all this is the following section:
"each pulse should be attenuated to an average of about .1 photon to reduce the probability of generating a two-photon pulse that could be split and eavesdropped undetectably."


What that says to me is that there is not way to 100% know you're transmitting just one photon.

It sounds like there's no device that is capable of transmitting one and only one photon with 100% reliability. If this is the case, a lot of the arguments about how secure this is are vastly overstated.

In the end QC would be vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack by watching for multi-photon emissions.

If this is the case, a lot of the noise surrounding QC could turn out to be hype. (The big plus for quantum crypto is that it's supposedly immune to this.) Is there a quantum physicist in the house?

Re:Quantum Crypto Provably Flawed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932762)

I'm sorry, you're going to have to ask your questions on a board where someone actually knows what they are talking about. Here all you're going to get is conjecture and half-truths. Sad facts, but still facts.

Re:Quantum Crypto Provably Flawed? (5, Interesting)

gunnk (463227) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932820)

I think you're worried about something that happens, but isn't a useful eavesdropping technique. Suppose that you have a device for emitting single photons. Further suppose that the emitter accidentally emits two photons for a single bit 1% of the time.

If an eavesdropper successfully split the extra photons off, they have successfully captured 1% of the data stream. First off, that's not much data if you want to reconstruct something meaningful in the way of information carried by the stream.

Another problem, however, is the effect of the splitter on the rest of the stream. When a single photon passes the splitter, which path does it choose? If I'm not mistaken, that choice will be at random. If so, then the presence of the splitter becomes immediately detectable because half the single photon pulses never reach their destination. In fact, the number missing is likely to be so close to 50% that the presence of the splitter should be obvious to the bank.

Re:Quantum Crypto Provably Flawed? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933011)

IIRC they don't send anywhere near 1 photon. It's more like 100 photons and these can possibly be passed through one of those multiplier thingies. Obviously if you've got that kind of access to the fiber, you can perform a man-in-the-middle attack anyway. Just cut the cable and plug in some equipment like they use at the 2 ends. To each party you pretend to be the other party and just relay the messages. If key exchange is done over the wire, you perform that step for each of them. If a key is exchanged via another channel (say by floppy disk) then there is no need for the quantum crypto anyway.

QC gets you nothing but an increase in complexity - which is helpful against most people, but probably not a big deal to those who can get access to the bank fiber.

Why MIM doesn't work (4, Insightful)

gevmage (213603) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932829)

I've seen a few presentations/demos on this. Basically the idea is the transmission runs on probability. Each photon has a certain probability of being lost. So the receiving station knows what the general frequency that it can expect, and if its not, the signal is being tampered with.

The reason that the man-in-the-middle attack doesn't work is that by doing so, you introduce two sets of attenuation rather than one. If the message is intercepted and then re-transmitted, the message has now been sent through the attenuation cycle twice. This means that instead of the signal being modified by the original attenuation function, it's modified by the attenuation function squared, which is easy to distinguish.

Hey! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932689)

Gates' Account (1)

LordHatrus (763508) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932692)

Gates Account, holding his several billion dollars, is the only account in this database to take up ALMOST 5 MICROMETERS OF SPACE!!!!
ph33r teh $$$ !!!

Heisenberger (5, Funny)

jabbadabbadoo (599681) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932700)

According to Heisenberger, my money is going to be both here and there. And if I'm to check my balance, the result will be inaccurate because I'm checking it up.

Nah, back to those good ol' electrons.

Re:Heisenberger (4, Funny)

Nuklearwanze (693728) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932788)

well you have to decide: either know where your money is, or how much it is...

So... (3, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932728)

So then the money has been both transfered and not transfered? That sounds like an argument waiting to happen.

How does it defeat repeaters? (3, Insightful)

Thinkit4 (745166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932734)

What I don't understand is why can't you cut the line and put in something like a repeater. When you read a bit, you change that photon, but then you just transmit a clean one with the same value (or maybe even change it to confuse).

Re:How does it defeat repeaters? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932846)

When the two photons are sent apart from eachother, heading in opposite directions, their properties are unknown. When you "read" the properties on one of the photons, the other one instantly takes on the opposite property. Since you'd be reading them before the time when they were actually supposed to arrive, you'd spoil the other half that you aren't messing with before they arrived, too.

Re:How does it defeat repeaters? (5, Informative)

einstein (10761) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932864)

because you wouldn't know which photons contain the data. as soon as you touch it, the other end knows it's datastream has been tampered with.

This [dartmouth.edu] is a good overview.

Re:How does it defeat repeaters? (4, Informative)

saddino (183491) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932952)

In order to "read" the photon, you will need to measure the polarization of that photon. But, due to quantum mechanics, as soon as you measure the polarization (for example, with a filter), you will in effect have changed its polarization, and thus its original, actual polarization will be unknown to you. And that's the trick. In essence, the message is "read once." Even if you happen to use the exact same filter as the sender, and read the original photon (and message) for yourself, you can not retransmit the photon with its original, actual polarization -- and thus your "clean one" will arrive at the destination as garbage (thus notifying the receiver that the message has been compromised).

For more info read this primer [csa.com] .

Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932750)

Are current encryption schemes crackable?

Re:Why bother? (1)

timealterer (772638) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932856)

As a rule, all systems, are always, always crackable. Always. If we're not pushing the envelope to replace the current technology, then when it's easily crackable, game over. I don't know how many people I've heard say AES 128 is "impossible" to bypass. Right, and 640k should be enough.

Re:Why bother? (2, Informative)

cardmagic (224509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933034)

The Vernam cipher ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernam_cipher ) which is used to encrypt the data is PROVABLY not crackable. The quantum part is a PROVABLY secure key exchange. It has been proven that this system is uncrackable.

Re:Why bother? (1)

orion41us (707362) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932926)

Most can be cracked, for example md5 and such hashing algorithms can be brut forced; while a public/private key scheamse are varnarable to the man-in-the-middle attack. WAP protocol has predictable keys i it's encription algorithm that show up every so often... There is yet to be an uncrackable encryption, and if there is <TinFoilHat> I bet the NSA is doing all it can to prevent it from being implemented.</TinFoilHat>

snake oil (4, Insightful)

Kallahar (227430) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932801)

Bruce Schneier covered why quantum cryptography doesn't solve any security/secrecy problems in his December 15, 2003 Crypto-Gram [schneier.com] .

"It's like defending yourself against an approaching attacker by putting a huge stake in the ground. It's useless to argue about whether the stake should be fifty feet tall or a hundred feet tall, because the attacker is going to go around it. Even quantum cryptography doesn't "solve" all of cryptography: the keys are exchanged with photons, but a conventional mathematical algorithm takes over for the actual encryption."

Re:snake oil (2, Interesting)

cardmagic (224509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933009)

But the conventional mathematical algorithm that takes over the actual encryption is the only known unbreakable cypher known to man kind... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernam_cipher

Re:snake oil (1)

quetzalc0atl (722663) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933033)

i dont believe that this argument is valid since what we are talking about is _quantum key management_, not quantum crypto. the crypto algorithms are still the same, it is just that keys can be transferred in a way that is guaranteed secure by our current understanding of the laws of physics. if you read the fine print, that is exactly what he is saying. the question is: so what? most of his argument is about one-up-manship. its like saying "hey theres no point locking your car, because someone can always use a slimjim to open it"...yeah yeah, we know, but we all try to lock our cars anyway.

hey i like Schneier too, but he sometimes throws the baby out with the bathwater. just "because Bruce says so" doesnt really cut it anymore.

Re:snake oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8933057)

This doesn't cover too much. I see his point about "going around it", but note the rebuttal to this stmt above. And I certainly don't understand the second bit about a "conventional mathematical algorithm" (CMA). Check this out:

"Even RSA doesn't `solve' all of cryptography: compared with ROT13, the substitutions are exchanged with modulo arithmetic, but a conventional mathematical algorithm still does the actual encryption."

The CMA of quantum cryptography has provably secure properties that just DO NOT exist in the classic realm, just like RSA has sort-of-proven-but-accepted-by-concensus properties that ROT13 certainly doesn't.

Asks teller what my mortgage 'principle' is... (1)

openSoar (89599) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932816)

... i'm not 'certain' - have you asked mr. heisenberg?

How Immediate is Immediate? (2, Interesting)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932825)

Quantum Key Distribution does not invoke the transport of the key, since it is created at the sender and receiver site immediately.

Is this instantaneous? Wouldn't that violate the whole speed-o-light thing?

Re:How Immediate is Immediate? (4, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932948)

Is this instantaneous? Wouldn't that violate the whole speed-o-light thing?


Yes and no. (Well, we *are* talking quantum stuff here, aren't we?) Do a google for "bell inequality" and see if you can get anything from the results. Basically, the answer is , yes, it is instantaneous. And no, it doesn't violate the speed-of-light limitation because you cannot get any useful information transmitted that way. You see, there are two photons which are interlocked. The first photn came at the speed of light and it contains the information you are looking for. The second photon, which serves to validate the quantum key is redundant from the information point of view, it doesn't carry the bank account balance, it only serves to detect tampering in the system.

Re:How Immediate is Immediate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8933049)

According to this page [perimeterinstitute.ca] , Quantum Key Distribution is a multi-step protocol which goes at the speed of the wires. It appears to be immune to eavesdropping, but not to a man-in-the-middle attack.

Re:How Immediate is Immediate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8933103)

It is instantaneous. Time moves at 299,792,458 m/s.

is this as big as I think? (2, Interesting)

meshko (413657) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932842)

My knowledge of cryptography is limited to the entry level college course of which I remember quite little, and my knowledge of physics is as limited as it can be.
To me this story is rather sensational -- I didn't realize that quantum crypto is that close to actually being used; it also seems to me that wide use of quantum crypto is going to revolutionalize the field.
Can someone who knows a lot about this explain to the rest of us: is this "WOW!!!" or just "neat!"?

Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932869)

Call the producers of Quantum Leap!!

Unfortunately (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932876)

The more accurately you know how much money to send, the less you know about where to send the money.

quantum jokes galore (4, Funny)

TMB (70166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932912)

Yeah, but filling out the slip for "1/sqrt(2) |deposit> - i/sqrt(2) |withdrawal>" is a pain, and thanks to the epoch of inflation my balance is now much smaller than the rest of the universe... luckily, even in an income vacuum my balance randomly jumps up, but only for REEEEAAALLLLYY short lengths of time. I've been hawking radiation for a while but everyone says it's just a two slit operation.

Okay, I'm done now.

[TMB]

Quantum foam, take me home... (1)

nova20 (524082) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933050)

has anyone read Michael Crichton's Timeline? Isn't it possible that my account balance will will transport itself to another multiverse?

/nova20

The history of cryptography (4, Informative)

Vlar (749162) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933063)

I remember reading a book all about the history of cryptography. It outlined the evolution of cryptograpy from simple albhabet substitutions to the concept of quantum cryptography. It shows all the pros and cons and weighs them against eachother.

Excelent read for anyone interested in the field or just currious about it.

ISBN: 0385495315

Re:The history of cryptography (1)

Vlar (749162) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933129)

Forgot to mention the information on the book other than ISBN.

The Code Book
by Simon Singh

How long before.... (1)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933125)

Subject: Quantum Cryptography prevents fund transfer: please help
Minister of Hope Church
Plot 555
Misau Street
PMB 437
Garki, Abuja, FCT NIGERIA

Dear Mr. Sir,

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE-STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

I am Dr. Bakare Tunde, the cousin of top cryptographic scientist Major Abacha Tunde. He was the first African to create PGP key in 1991. He became very depressed when got no messages, but amassed large fund as consultant military encryptionist to prevent interception of top messages in late nineties.

In the 14-years since he has been working, he has accumulated pay and interest amounting to almost $ 15,000,000 American Dollars. This is held in an encrypted trust at the Lagos National Savings and Trust Association. Unfortunately expert accidentally forgot domestic cryptic key and cannot access legitimate funds from Nigeria. In order to access the his bank account we need your assistance.

Consequently, my colleagues and I are willing to transfer the total amount to your account or subsequent disbursement, since we as civil servants are prohibited by the Code of Conduct Bureau (Civil Service Laws) from opening and/ or operating foreign accounts in our names.

Needless to say, the trust reposed on you at this juncture is enormous. In return, we have agreed to offer you 20 percent of the transferred sum, while 10 percent shall be set aside for incidental expenses (internal and external) between the parties in the course of the transaction. You will be mandated to remit the balance 70 percent to other accounts in due course.

Kindly expedite action as we are behind schedule to enable us include downpayment in this financial quarter.

Please acknowledge the receipt of this message via my direct number 234 (0) 9-234-2220 only.

Yours Sincerely, Father Bakare Tunde
Pastor, Hope Church

so if.... (1)

presmike (754040) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933150)

the lights get turned off, where does all my money go?

Entanglement (3, Interesting)

ztirffritz (754606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8933169)

As I understand it (according to Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything") entangelment does in fact violate Einsteins theory. It says that two entangled photons at any distance apart from each other will react identically instantaneously. **Notice** Instantaneously! That is faster than the speed of light. Einstein did not believe that this was possible, but experiments have shown this to be true, at least as we understand it. The part that impresses me the most is that someone devised a logic experiment that could determine the results with near certainty without altering the results. An excellent source for more information is the book "Mind at Light Speed", I forget the author's name. "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is also a great book which covers so many topics that it made my head spin.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...