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!

First Quantum Cryptographic Data Network

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the networks-with-friggin-lasers dept.

65

jdubs writes to tell us ScienceDaily is reporting that scientists at Northwestern University and BBN Technologies have demonstrated the first truly quantum cryptographic data network. From the article: "Kumar's research team recently demonstrated a new way of encrypting data that relies on both traditional algorithms and on physical principles. This QDE method, called AlphaEta, makes use of the inherent and irreducible quantum noise in laser light to enhance the security of the system and makes eavesdropping much more difficult. Unlike most other physical encryption methods, AlphaEta maintains performance on par with traditional optical communications links and is compatible with standard fiber optical networks."

cancel ×

65 comments

Quantum post (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005238)

This post is <blink>not</blink> insightful!

Re:Quantum post (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005271)

I agree...

Re:Quantum post (1)

rackhamh (217889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005295)

If you'd had a quantum computer, perhaps you would have known your blink tags wouldn't work BEFORE you hit the submit button! ;)

Re:Quantum post (1)

pkvon (899533) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005425)

Come on! Everyone knows you have to look first!

Re:Quantum post (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005561)

it was both blinking and not blinking. then you went and spoiled everything by observing it...

Re:Quantum post (3, Interesting)

waxigloo (899755) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005347)

I agree. It would have been nice if the article compared what they have done here with what is already been done by commerical quantum key ditribution (www.magiqtech.com). It is not clear from the article what is actually the new breakthrough...

Re:Quantum post (1)

schliz (994115) | more than 7 years ago | (#16013703)

That's cause it's a press release :( Cool tech though. I'll look into it and post another link up soon...

Oh god no... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005252)

The sharks are talking to each other with their frickin' lasers! Quick, get Sony to invent a ludicrously overpriced piece of hardware for all the other colours of laser, so that we get a shortage of those too and the sharks can't get their fins on any more! ...OK, I'm done.

Quantum proof. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005266)

"This QDE method, called AlphaEta, makes use of the inherent and irreducible quantum noise in laser light to enhance the security of the system and makes eavesdropping much more difficult. Unlike most other physical encryption methods, AlphaEta maintains performance on par with traditional optical communications links and is compatible with standard fiber optical networks."

And the NSA already has a patent on it.

Will we know? (4, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005267)

We know a working quantum computer, on a sufficient scale, can crack modern encryption in something like linear time, or at least better than the current exponential time. We know that no such computer exists now, or at least not on sufficient scale to enable the NSA to snoop all our encrypted traffic.

Or (tinfoil hat time) do we really? Will we know when this happens, or will it be classified and snapped up by the government? Would we notice that? (The way we did with the a-bomb -- contests were held for whose work could be classified the fastest.) Or would we only notice years later, when it's finally leaked...

Re:Will we know? (1, Funny)

Tribely (815864) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005280)

In Soviet Russia etc. etc. etc. uh-huh.

Re:Will we know? (1)

Rufus211 (221883) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005286)

(The way we did with the a-bomb -- contests were held for whose work could be classified the fastest.)

Never heard of this before, but seems resonable. Any sources?

Re:Will we know? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005476)

Can't find any, sorry. I think this is something my high school physics teacher told me.

Re:Will we know? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005503)

It's been classified.

Re:Will we know? (5, Interesting)

johndoe42 (179131) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005377)

Really? Last I heard, quantum computers were not known to be able to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time, and, in the absence of cryptographic breakthroughs, breaking symmetric ciphers ought to be difficult NP problems. Grover's algorithm might help, but only enough to reduce the rate of exponential growth a bit (i.e. 256-bit encryption will stuff be effectively unbreakable by any technology, unless BQP >= NP).

That being said, quantum computers can easily break RSA, ElGamal, and related schemes (using Shor's algorithm, for example). But this quantum encryption thing, absent any details, doesn't look like it's trying to do assymetric encryption.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing [wikipedia.org] for more info.

Re:Will we know? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005482)

As far as I know, you usually need asymmetric encryption to reasonably set up temporary symmetric encryption. And so many systems today are based on RSA, which is what I'm talking about. Basically, it makes SSH no more secure than Telnet.

Re:Will we know? (3, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005766)

An existing large enough quantum computer would make ssh much less secure, but as long as not everyone can afford his own quantum computer, it would still be magnitudes more secure than telnet. It's still a difference if e.g. your encrypted banking password can be read by the government, or if it can be read by anyone having access to a computer in between.

Re:Will we know? (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006369)

Your post is a bit shortsighted. Substitute "the government" with "any organisation which can match .gov spending in the particular area of quantum decryption devices". That's a much larger set.

Re:Will we know? (2, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006750)

And add "any hacker who gets can break into the systems of such an organization."

Re:Will we know? (1)

inKubus (199753) | more than 7 years ago | (#16007683)

The government CAN read your shit. Even if they maybe can't decrypt your bank password, they can just stroll into the bank and get what they need. So yeah, you are just protecting yourself from the Joe Cracker who wants credit card numbers to card shit, or an identity theft ring that wants to make ID's for illegal mexican immigrants (terrorists).

Hopefully it's not a problem if the Government reads our shit because THEY WORK FOR US (so the constitution says). If they misuse that information, it's really our own fault because we are not being good managers and checking up on our EMPLOYEES to make sure they are doing a good job. We are not FIRING the employees that break the rules. Don't be so paranoid, they can't throw you in jail for complaining, this isn't 1939 Germany, this isn't Stalinist Russia. They need good ideas, and some people need to be fired for insubordination. endrant

Anyway, the article is pretty clear that quantum noise encryption only works point to point (that is, utilizing a fiber optic as a quantum dot or line or whatever) so you are going to have vulnerability at every router along the way (when your packet hops out of quantum-land and into electron world). So as always, your security is limited by the security of the physical infrastructure. Could this be applied to RF transmissions? Perhaps. I gather the wavelengths might be a little too long though. Basically, it's time to realize that security is really about not having anything anyone can steal.

Information (messages) want to be free, they want to be copied. You can put it in an envelope, but the person you WANT to can open the envelope, someone else you DON'T can also. And in digital land, we can copy the envelope and what's inside of it without you knowing. In quantum land, we can't. But sooner or later is has to come out of quantum land into our physical reality and at that point it will ALWAYS be vulnerable.

Re:Will we know? (4, Informative)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006925)

As far as I know, you usually need asymmetric encryption to reasonably set up temporary symmetric encryption.

Yes and no. Let's step back and cover what is currently done:

Typically you generate a public/private key and give one out to the world (the "public" part, though in most systems that's an arbitrary distinction). The reason you do this is because it's "safe" to give out the public part (no one can decrypt your messages with it) and it gets around the horrible problems inherent in trying to move a key around that *can* decrypt your data (such as those used in symetric key systems). Now you could just stop there, and encrypt all of your data using the target's public key, but it turns out that that's fairly computationally expensive.

In order to speed up the process, you can just use the public key to encrypt a random, one-time session key that you use as the input to a (much faster) symmetric key algorithm such as IDEA, blowfish, twofish, DES, 3DES, etc. Now you have a fast communication path and, as long as the symmetric key system is believed to be at least as strong as the asymetric key system, you have not lost any security.

Now, if symetric key is so much faster, why don't we just use THAT? Well, we would, except that it's a pain to get the symetric key to the target without compromising it. You could, for example, send it via U.S. Post (slow, and not 100% reliable), send it over a private communication channel like a leased line (expensive, not secure), etc. There are other ways too. For example, you can NOT send the key, but have an out-of-band agreement as to how they are generated. For exaple, you might agree to use a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) wiht a particular seed on a particular date, generating a new key each day. That's not too bad for some purposes, by typically it's not strong enough for truly important information, as PRNGs tend to have their own flaws, and anyone who finds out what you're doing essentially has every key you'll ever use until you exchange a new seed.

What quantum encryption changes is this: it gives you a secure channel over which to communicate (usually at low bandwidth), so you can use it to move a key for symmetric key encryption, and then perform your encryption with that. If anyone evesdrops on the connection, you are guaranteed to know (because the data will be changed, and presumably you've built in appropriate checksums so that you will realize that you now have line noise), and you won't use that key (providing trivial denial of service, which is why this isn't good for non-physical communications).

Quantum computing essentially replaces asymetric key encryption for short, physical links in terms of providing a secure way to exchange symmetric keys. If it gets up to the point that high volumes of data can be moved through the quantum link (which the article is not describing), then you can just move a one-time pad through the link, and your encryption algorithm will be a simple xor.

Re:Will we know? (1)

(negative video) (792072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16010209)

What quantum encryption changes is this: it gives you a secure channel over which to communicate (usually at low bandwidth), so you can use it to move a key for symmetric key encryption, and then perform your encryption with that.

<sigh> Quantum "cryptography" is not what most people seem to think it is. It's mostly snake oil pushed by con artists and deluded academics.

The only thing "quantum encryption" does is tell you that you exchanged a secret message with whatever machine is plugged into the other end of the link. It is quite possible that that machine is owned and operated by an enemy. Therefore you must verify the message using a shared secret and a conventional message authentication algorithm. The overall system is no stronger than that algorithm. But the snake oil salesmen claim you need their system because the enemy has enough money to break any possible deterministic cipher ...

Now, assuming that you have proper message authentication and a shared secret, "quantum cryptography" does protect you against passive eavesdropping and analysis years later when computing has become cheaper. That is a far cry from the ironclad protection against active attackers that is promised, and neither is it obviously more cost-effective than deterministic ciphers.

Re:Will we know? (1)

LRBenson (984351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16019649)

There are some smart mofo's on /.

Perfect case in point (2, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005449)

When Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in the Bell Aerospace X-1 rocket plane, the results were kept classified by the airforce.

Re:Will we know? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005668)

The problem is one of information theory - read Cryptonomicon for a good fictional overview of these type of issues - the problem is that *if* they had a working quantum decrypter could they use it yadda yadda, well, there's two options - either they start using it left right and centre and soon everyone *knows* that the NSA can read encrypted data (in which case the bright monkeys will switch back to one-time pads and the hell that is key exchange) - or the NSA will be very clever about it and only act on that information they have decrypted that they can explain coming from other sources, such as:-
1. crack PGP1024-bit message using quantum goodiness
2. get juicy intelligence from message
3. 'bust' someone in the 'organisation' who had access to this information
4. go public with/act upon the intelligence, claiming where needed 'x told us everything'

The whole issue is one the allies had to deal with throughout WWII since they had cracked enigma and so wanted to act on the intelligence without letting the axis know that we could read their codes.

Having said all that though - I'm a big believer in the cock-up Vs. conspiracy theory, meaning given two situtations it is usually always the case that the conspiracy is fantasy.

Re:Will we know? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005791)

It could be much simpler than that today, though -- just find a fairly isolated terrorist cell and bust them. The Patriot Act lets you do it without telling the public why, and the rest of the network never knows how they were caught.

Still, the Cryptonomicon point is a valid one. Even with an elaborate scheme like yours, you still can't be 100% accurate, and every day you have to decide: Do we let this one pass, so they don't get too suspicious, and so we can do more good later, or do we nail them now, so we're not sacrificing real lives now to possibly save more lives later?

Anyway...

I suspect your theory about conspiracy theories is flawed, in that any half-decent conspiracy theory isn't easily provable as a fantasy. It doesn't mean one should believe them, either -- like God, they are often inherently not scientific hypotheses, because they can't be disproved. For one thing, the fact that we could crack enigma is, I think, a good example of a real conspiracy that was probably once just a theory.

Re:Will we know? (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16007083)

I suspect your theory about conspiracy theories is flawed, in that any half-decent conspiracy theory isn't easily provable as a fantasy. It doesn't mean one should believe them, either -- like God, they are often inherently not scientific hypotheses, because they can't be disproved.

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong. Yes, god cannot be proven or disproven, as the concept is completely outside our laws of nature, but claiming the same of conspiracy theories? Now that's just silly.

Re:Will we know? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16007941)

Let's try that, then. Disprove for me, if you will, that an alien craft landed at Area 51 and is now being held in a secure location...

Maybe it's a silly idea, but it's pretty much impossible to disprove. If it's specific enough to disprove, they can still change the theory to match new facts.

Not all conspiracy theories are created equal. However, the one I was bringing up, specifically about quantum computers existing now and being used to crack encryption, cannot practically be disproved, as that would require turning over every single bit of government beaurocracy, gaining all classified access, spending years sifting through it, and eventually saying to yourself "Well of course it wouldn't be in any of these records, no one else in the government knows it exists!"

The rather large difference is, it's generally accepted that conspiracy theories can be proven, if true, whereas even if God spoke in a deep, rumbling voice from the heavens and shook the Earth and smote every other bad person, there would be skeptics and atheists -- how do we know this God is the "real" one, and not just a human with superior technology?

Re:Will we know? (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16008297)

I think the problem isn't that it's hard to prove god exists, but that the concept of god is completely outside the scientific method. How can you measure or observe something that can create a universe at will, controls time and can change the very laws of nature? Even if someone found a way to detect the presence of god, then this god could suddenly decide to change the past and make it so the person never invented the detection mechanism. Or maybe it changes the very laws of nature, making the method ineffectual at detecting it. Conspiracy theories on the other hand, are entirely human constructs, and as such break no known laws of nature (those that do, are disproven by the act of breaking those laws). They can be falsified by humans, and eventually most are. As you already pointed out, with enough time and money, one could gather enough evidence to do just that. Obviously some people will refuse to believe something even in the face of overwhelming evidence (creationists), but we're not trying to prove theories to them, as they're beyond hope anyways.


As for the god example, I for one would not believe that to be a god, as it sounds rather underwhelming. If that's all a god is capable of, then I wouldn't bother wasting my time worshipping something like that, as science isn't too far (the rumbling voice and shaking earth is already doable) from giving that kind of powers to humans. :)

Re:Will we know? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16008650)

As you already pointed out, with enough time and money, one could gather enough evidence to do just that.

Prohibitively expensive, for all intents and purposes, can mean theoretically impossible. No one will ever organize the kind of resources needed to hunt down one conspiracy theories, when ten others will spring up in their place, at least one saying the "proof" comes from an untrustworthy source.

Kind of like how, without a working quantum computer, there is no known way to beat RSA, because even if we somehow managed to gather enough resources to crack a 1024-bit or 2048-bit key, I can just up it again to 4096-bit, and it will now take you all of the matter in the universe until the heat-death of the universe to crack it.

Disproving conspiracy theories is much the same -- in theory, you could, so philosophically it's different than a god, but in practice, not really, and it also makes it difficult to say, with any real conviction, "There are no aliens, or they've never been to Earth."

Rumbling and such, maybe not as impressive, although it'd be a bit different if it's happening to you. But I think the smiting every other bad person bit would be pretty scary, god or not!

Re:Will we know? (1)

solitas (916005) | more than 7 years ago | (#16007370)

The whole issue is one the allies had to deal with throughout WWII since they had cracked enigma and so wanted to act on the intelligence without letting the axis know that we could read their codes.

Um, I think the Allies didn't exactly HAVE those problems. They only had to justify the intelligence for themselves - they did not have civilian groups demanding 'full disclosure', media making an idiot-simple circus out of 'spying' coverage, or enemies crying to a u.n. they they were being 'unfair'...

Re:Will we know? (1)

ishepherd (709545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16010000)

The point is that by repelling attacks *too* efficiently, the enemy becomes suspicious that you have broken their communications somehow - and one way is by cryptanalysis. So they change their encryption methods, and suddenly you are stuffed.

Oblig wiki link [wikipedia.org] :

The Allies were seriously concerned with the prospect of the Axis command finding out that they had broken into the Enigma traffic. This was taken to the extreme that, for instance, though they knew from intercepts the whereabouts of U-boats lying in wait in mid-Atlantic, the U-boats often were not hunted unless a "cover story" could be arranged -- a search plane might be "fortunate enough" to sight the U-boat, thus explaining the Allied attack. Ultra information was used to attack and sink many Afrika Korps supply ships bound for North Africa; but, as in the North Atlantic, every time such information was used, an "innocent" explanation had to be provided: often scout planes were sent on otherwise unnecessary missions, to ensure they were spotted by the Germans.

Re:Will we know? (1)

solitas (916005) | more than 7 years ago | (#16011058)

You're right - I hadn't remembered Churchill dilemma concerning Coventry.

Re:Will we know? (4, Informative)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005755)

I don't mean to be a pedant but this article has nothing to do with quantum computing. It just has to do with using quantum mechanics to design a data stream that is impossible to be eavedropped on according to quantum physics. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for more details.

Re:Will we know? (1)

UnHolier than ever (803328) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005817)

I don't mean to be pedant, but the summary did not mention quantum computing, it only mentioned quantum cryptography which is what the article is about, for once.

Re:Will we know? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005881)

I don't mean to be a pedant, but that was in direct reply to my comment on quantum computing, so it would seem to be a valid bit of pedantry.

Thank you (1)

JackBuckley (696547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006650)

No pedantics taken. I was about to post the same point for all the kiddies citing Neal Stephenson as their source of crypto knowledge.

As someone who does QC work for the government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16006583)

We know that no such computer exists now, or at least not on sufficient scale to enable the NSA to snoop all our encrypted traffic.

Or (tinfoil hat time) do we really? Will we know when this happens, or will it be classified and snapped up by the government?

Speaking as someone who does QC work for the government, we're a LONG way off from this. Quantum computing (unlike quantum encryption, which the article is about) is nowhere near the point of being useful for code breaking. The government is not going to want to classify this sort of work until some of the fundamental hurdles have been cleared and they just have to throw money at scaling issues. You are going to see much more progress published in scientific journals before there is any chance of the work getting classified.

I don't actually know what criteria the decison makers will use (but I bet they have been identified, at least provisionally), but I would guess that at minimum someone will have to demonstrate few-qubit fault-tolerant QC in an implementation that is considered scalable (not e.g. NMR) before anyone thinks it is worth the trouble of classifying. Until then, there is too much to be gained from open dialouge with other research groups.

Also, a huge portion of QC research is happening outside the US, so the US government would not be able to suppress it even if they wanted to.

Re:Will we know? (1)

medelliadegray (705137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006915)

the only way it would *EVER* get out is if that information were leaked, or another government said "look what we can do", even with the later, the US of A would probably remain silent in their capabilities.

why? think of how much leverage the us would have in being able to eavesdrop on any friend or foe. I cant think of anything which would have more strategic value.

I think if an academic facity were to announce a breakthrough such as this, (assuming it was before OR after the government had a working version of it), The academic facility would probably also be gag-ordered with documents confiscated. yes, i am referring to the usa.

Re:Will we know? (2, Informative)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16007823)

When an invention's time comes, the invention comes. The telephone was invented almost simultaneously by both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Grey, who arrived at the patent office only a few hours too late. The phonograph was invented by Thomas Alva Edison at around the same time as the gramophone was invented by Emil Berliner. The filament bulb was invented by Thomas Alva Edison only one year after it had already been invented by Joseph Swan {and unfortunately still has not been banned}. A public-key encryption algorithm was invented in the UK in the 1970s, but kept under wraps by the UK authorities; it was later discovered independently by Rivest, Shamir and Adelman in the USA. Details of the UK invention emerged shortly before the US patent expired.

Given all of which, I think it's reasonable to suppose that when the time for quantum computing arrives, quantum computing will arrive. With even the current state of communication systems, and assuming that communications will continue improving over time, it would be damn nigh impossible to suppress the facts.

Re:Will we know? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16008007)

They don't have to suppress facts, they just have to ridicule anyone who questions the official version of the truth -- which is how they deal with UFO sightings. Whether or not they are true, you have to admit, if UFOs were real and the government was hiding them, we would "know" just as much about them as we do now.

Also, your RSA example does help -- how much later? And certainly with modern tech, you often see good fields unexplored because they aren't yet seen as practical. A good example here is programming techniques -- there are some known good ones, yet the copy'n'paste, code-test-fix cycle is still under heavy use.

Interesting points, though.

Re:Will we know? (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16008832)

They don't have to suppress facts, they just have to ridicule anyone who questions the official version of the truth -- which is how they deal with UFO sightings. Whether or not they are true, you have to admit, if UFOs were real and the government was hiding them, we would "know" just as much about them as we do now.
Actually, the British and American governments deliberately let people believe in UFO sightings to cover up military experiments. The famous cattle mutilations were just hasty attempts to obtain tissue samples to determine the effect of experimental weapons on living things; some samples were taken from areas away from the actual experiments, both to serve as a control {by providing samples unaffected by the experiment} and to divert attention from the experiments.

If anything useful had come from the experiments, it ought to have been replicated by someone else by now. However, the military are known to pursue useless lines of inquiry during peacetime. This serves two purposes; first, it distracts attention from any real research that may be going on {and having the inevitable copycats and hangers-on copy something glamourous but useless is better than having them copy something useful}; and second, it secures funding, which will be increased in the event of war.

Also, your RSA example does help -- how much later?
Original invention was by Clifford Cox at GCHQ in 1973, but not declassified until 25 years later. The RSA paper was published in 1977. The US patent was granted in 1983 and expired in 2000; according to most countries' laws, the 1977 paper counted as Prior Art and the patent would never have been valid there; which may explain why the US authorities were so keen to treat encryption as a weapon and restrict its export.

And certainly with modern tech, you often see good fields unexplored because they aren't yet seen as practical. A good example here is programming techniques -- there are some known good ones, yet the copy'n'paste, code-test-fix cycle is still under heavy use.
Well, it's used because it works :) Not just in programming, but in Nature {at least, outside Kansas}. Duplication of effort is waste of effort, and sensible use of abstraction {ie: between a means and an end, not just where it looks pretty} allows you to replace part of a program when a better way is found to achieve the same effect.

Re:Will we know? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16009884)

You seem to be advising against copy'n'paste, so it would seem you agree with me here. And personally, I prefer a quick evolutionary process. Code, unit test, fix, so that it's correct, and stays correct, while you work on something else. The cycle I hate is code the whole thing, then spend the last month or two testing and fixing bugs, at least until managers deliberately ship the (still) buggy code.

Re:Will we know? (1)

DangerTenor (104151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16010730)

Well, as I just posted on our blog, SecurityMusings [securitymusings.com] ...

The theory is that quantum cryptography / quantum eavesdropping-proof networks will advance as quickly (or quicker) than general-purpose quantum computers. So, we'll hopefully all have moved to quantum cryptography by the time quantum computers are available which can cut through today's keys like a hot knife through butter.

Theoretically....

-=-=-=- Listen to and comment upon the musings of information security geeks [securitymusings.com] -=-=-=-

. : UBUNTU is the where it's at : . (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005269)

.

.: UBUNTU is the where it's at :. Be one of the UBUNTU people, and be one NOW !!!

.

.

The real question is... (2, Funny)

und0 (928711) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005287)

Has Harold a research team of his own?

Cryptographic Data Networks are Inferior (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005293)

If there were any real value to Cryptographic Data Networks, the Oxbridge universities would have demonstrated them long ago. However, because of their resiliance to eavesdropping, such systems are inferior to those used in Britain where Big Brother has prevailed since 1984.

Superior British systems are free from such "resiliance". Our loyal people have nothing to hide from us.

This is The Voice of Fate signing out.

England prevails, gentlemen.

Harold and Kumar? (1)

jarg0n (882275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005296)

And I Thought Kumar and his team were a bunch of stoners!

Re:Harold and Kumar? (0, Offtopic)

Blue Lang (13117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005302)

noobs.

Re:Harold and Kumar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16007332)

The first message Kumar sent over his secure quantum crypto link contained directions to the nearest White Castle.

But... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005331)

...will it run linux?

Overlords (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16005348)

I 4 1 welcome our quantum overlords...

Cheating! (3, Funny)

Mister Impressive (875697) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005386)

They changed the outcome of the test by checking the results!

Solution without a problem (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005488)

Is modern digital cryptography so easily broken anyway? No.

I don't mind research on quantum tunnels and so on regarding cryptography, but I really wonder: who ever needed it.

BTW, anyone need a noisy stupid mechanical donkey? Oh yea the military do. I swear this is where this is going as well. No general wants someone to sniff his porn traffic.

Re:Solution without a problem (3, Interesting)

chicoryn (989443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005532)

I can't claim to be an expert on the subject but rather then an actual new encryption quantum cryptography is an way to ensure no one can listen without you knowing(Making use of the "Can't watch without changing" law in quantum physics), while it isn't that much of an problem right the computer power will continue increasing, better to have the solution before the problem right? And yes this isn't going to be an home device anytime soon since it's WAY to expensive for home use.

Re:Solution without a problem (1)

DarenN (411219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005841)

Well Duh! :)

FTA:
The quantum cryptographic research project is supported by a five-year, $5.4 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Can some-one please explain? (5, Informative)

kwikrick (755625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16005933)

The article does not explain at all what quantum cryptograpy is and how it's different from the cryptograpy we all know. Ah, but here's wikipedia to the rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_encryption [wikipedia.org] :

Quantum cryptography uses quantum mechanics for secure communications. Unlike traditional cryptography, which employs various mathematical techniques to restrict eavesdroppers from learning the contents of encrypted messages, quantum cryptography is based on the physics of information. Eavesdropping can be viewed as measurements on a physical object -- in this case the carrier of the information. Using quantum phenomena such as quantum superpositions or quantum entanglement one can design and implement a communication system which can always detect eavesdropping. This is because measurements on the quantum carrier of information disturbs it and therefore leaves traces.

Information-free article! (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006349)

The dang original article mush have encrypted all the useful information, as I didnt see a single useful detail.

You can certainly use quantum "noise" to generate high-entropy keys, but how does that prevent evesdropping on a public network? It can't.

And since novbody has been able to get even two quantum gates to work, they can't be using "quantum computing" in any real sense of the word.

Or perhaps TFA is the high-entropy key? More details, or ANY details, would have been useful.

Friggin Quantum crap. (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006736)

I'm sick of Quantum Cryptography. Every time I try and encrypt something, this smartass time-travelling scientist guy takes over my body, kisses some girl I know, and solves one of my lifelong problems before disappearing in a flash of cartoon FX.

Re:Friggin Quantum crap. (1)

Kehvarl (812337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16009724)

Settle down, you're leaping all over the place.

Story reads like a press release (3, Informative)

hotspotbloc (767418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16006803)

And it seems it is [eurekalert.org] . Others including UPI got caught too [google.com] .


Besides, a point-to-point quantum crypto connection was done around two years ago in Europe. Also the "article" never talks about the one thing you can't do with quantum traffic: route.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16009110)

The beauty of quantum encryptions is that even the smallest things means something different to everyone.

The basis of the encryption is simple. The data goes inside a plain cryptumbular box, and is locked with a quantum key. The key's signature can be detected by any decrypter, and the user is asked to use a C code to open it.

The C code is done differenlty by everyone, and does not deserve any specific comment. The obfuscation is awarded on the quantus anum, and the results are easily availible.

After that, the user can take the key and open the lock, and if the frame of reference is appropriate, the data will be readable. It's pretty much black and white.

how succesfull since we dont understand quantum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16014239)

I'm wondered how secure this realy is.

I mean we know a lot of physics but still not everything there is to know. This especialy accounts for quantum physics, it wouldnt surprice my if someone in the future will be able to find some kind of physic trick and know the quantum states of distant particles. So agree it is secure currently but i am wondered for howlong it will be that way.

(don't say this would never be possible as our current physic model isn't yet finished..)

AlphaEta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16016208)

Alpha Eta... is that some sort of really secret fraternity or something? Can't they come up with a better name?
Check for New 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...