Growing Diamonds for Better Information Security 113
hip2b2 writes "NetworkWorld is running an article that describes how a University of Melbourne research group is developing technology to make fiber optics communications more secure. The technology is based on Quantum Cryptography principles and requires than absolutely only one photon gets sent at any given time. Today, fiber optic systems do not send one photon at a time. They only approximate it. This makes current systems unsuitable for their secure communications technology. Therefore, the group uses artificially grown diamonds to achieve this."
I know it's early... (Score:1)
Growing Headlines for Better Slashdot Coverage (Score:1)
Congratulations, you have very nearly passed the Turing Test.
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2, Informative)
OK, quick googli
Re:They wont like this... (Score:5, Informative)
(e.g. the 'buyback' may not be cash on the barrelhead, but instead a credit towards a more expensive diamond, making it an upgrade, not a refund. This is very profitable for the jeweller, enabling them to effectively sell you the gem you can afford now vs. a decade ago, to collect additional revenue, while recouping the full 'buyback' price by selling the 'returned' diamond to a new customer at full price)
Appraised price is meaningless and unattainable, making diamonds a poor investment for those outside the trade.
Same is true of all gem stone: appraised vs real (Score:2)
Re:They wont like this... (Score:5, Informative)
DeBeers will give you all sorts of fud saying that they will eventually have a process for telling the difference between the two, but they won't. Ever.
--
BMO
Re:They wont like this... (Score:4, Interesting)
DeBeers will give you all sorts of fud saying that they will eventually have a process for telling the difference between the two, but they won't. Ever.
Actually, they do: excavated diamonds have more lattice defects and impurities than manufactured diamonds.
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
Indeed, read up on "blood diamonds"
Scary stuff.
I'd much rather have a manufactured diamond than anything that might have come from Sierra Leone.
--
BMO
Canadian Diamonds (Score:2)
Re:They wont like this... (Score:1)
I also think even the best artificial diamonds still have some defects, and they are of a sort not found in nature. It is getting to the point where it takes sophisticated equipment to tell the difference, but some people will probably always be willing to pay more for a provably natural diamond, even though the synthetic ones are better in every practical way.
Re:They wont like this... (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's what scares the diamond dealers the most. The most expensive diamonds are the ones that are so-called perfect. High quality manufactured diamonds could easily bring down the inflated value of the very top end diamonds.
--
BMO
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
"Oh, it's beautiful!"
"But, madame, it's man-made."
"So it's not real?"
"That is correct."
"Oh, I
Yeah. Nevermind that it's chemically and structurally identical, save for the lack of defects. It's worth crazy amounts of money to these people _because_ 'real' diamonds are so 'rare' (read: costly in terms of the blood and freedom of some folks out in africanistan -- meant as a slight to th
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
While I have no love for De Beers and they do spread a TON of FUD out there, I've read several trade publications about the amount of nickle and/or hydrogen traces in these synthetics that will give away it's origin...though not in every case of course. This is independent of De Beers also, but they certainly have a vested interest in finding this out.
But to
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
Not really, because as time goes on, manufactured diamonds will simply get better because process control will get better. Better atmospheres, better sputtering, you get the idea. It will get to the point that any color or clarity can be dialed in. Shut the door and hit the start switch.
It's an arms race that the diamond cartel will lose.
--
BMO
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2, Informative)
Remember the four 'C's: cut, colour, clarity, and carat weight. Lab-made diamonds can now be produced with rather high carat weight, necessary to cut them into gemstones (30-70% of the material is removed in cutting). They are now being grown large enough to be cut as well as any diamond; so 'cut' and 'carat weight' can be the same for the two.
The crys
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
Then the highest quality "natural" diamonds would be indistinguishable from manufactured diamonds, then, right? So if I bring in my auntie's flawless 2Ct diamond to be assessed, and it's too perfect, it will be branded "synthetic"? I don't think so.
"Artificial diamonds te
Coming soon: Apollo diamonds (Score:2)
Indeed, most artificial diamonds today are an intense orange-yellow colour because of the nitrogen introduced during processing.
True, Gemesis makes yellow diamonds. But later this year, Apollo [apollodiamond.com] (SWF warning) plans to introduce jewelry featuring its colorless diamonds. De Beers is scared.
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
The next round was that, for reasons I don't understand, manufactured diamonds fluoresce in ultraviolet. Mined diamonds need -rays to do the same thing (fluoresce, that is. "Fluoresce" is a word I'm not going to try to spell twice on my first cup of coff
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
Re:They wont like this... (Score:1)
That's quite a bold statement, especially considering that De Beers have made an instrument called DiamondView specifically for this purpose [debeersgroup.com]. I have personally been to many diamond-related conferences at which DiamondView results were presented.
Re:They wont like this... (Score:2)
No it doesn't. The refractive index of cubic zirconium is 2.176 compared to 2.417 for diamonds.
People have been growing diamonds for years. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that diamonds really have much value as gems anyway, have you ever tried to sell a second hand diamond ring?
Re:People have been growing diamonds for years. (Score:2, Interesting)
This may be true if you're just trying to sell something that you bought yourself, but if you were to sell the loose stone....if it's a quality stone that is...then of course it has value.
But you must remember, if you bought a ring at a discount or even a chain jewelery store, you're probably got ripped off. They sold you a diamond that was claimed to be much higher quality than it really is. Or h
Re:People have been growing diamonds for years. (Score:2)
Look no matte
I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
ironically.. (Score:1)
Vaporware that is real (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Vaporware that is real (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vaporware that is real (Score:2)
That article talks about both the vapor process & some old Russian technology that squished the hell out of stuff to make diamonds.
The part of TFA that interests me most is this
Defect?
Re:Vaporware that is real (Score:2)
Re:Vaporware that is real (Score:2)
I've got a book called The Rise and Fall of Diamonds (IIRC) that talks about earyl attempts at artificial diamonds. The russians had an unprofitable device, but GE made the first profitable artificial diamond maker. It was a huge set of hydraulic rams that came to points; where the points came together, you made a diamond. IIRC they sold the technology to DeBeers.
Re:Vaporware that is real (Score:2)
No popups (Score:3, Informative)
Wait (Score:1)
Will it not increase DOS attacks, if the attacker's aim is not the information theft?
Re:Wait (Score:3, Insightful)
EXCELLENT! (Score:1, Funny)
security (Score:1)
Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. The article implies: 1) I can build a secure fiber line between two points and to transfer a key, one photon at a time; and 2) once the key is transferred, I can then use standard telco lines. If I am going to the trouble to build a custom fiber optic network between two points that works with diamond lasers, why would I use telco lines? Conversely, if I don't build my own point to point fiber for key transmission then I run the risk of man-in-the-middle stealing my keys since the middle will have repeaters which can regenerate these 'secure photons'.
I say to you, this makes no sense. Why not just put 52 keys on a thumb drive or CD (one for each week of the year) and send it via a secure courier and then use telco lines for transmission? This looks like yet another ruse to get research money under the guise of quantum cryptography.
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Money is flowing into quantum crypto because courier-based kex is insufficient. Also, QC is intrinsically point-to-point since there's no current way to reliably switch photons. This allows you to take two black boxes and connect them with a cable 20 miles long, and you're 100% guaranteed to be able to get information from A to B without anyone being able to find it out. Could be good for, say, teleconferenc
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Are you aiming for 'zen' or 'nonsensical' here? If I can "consider the world" in such a way that I am not really considering my own perception of it, don't I have access to the objective truth already? (Meaning that I would be basically omnipotent, and in no need of philosophical advice from random people on Slashdot.)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
I also have an issue with your black-and-white statements regarding a person's subjective world view.
How does one reconcile "my id
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Well, I can think of one prime example right here [wikipedia.org].
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:2)
As for your "Consider the world" argument. I
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:2)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:3, Informative)
The point of building/using a quantum channel (the fibre line) is to solve the key distribution problem, it cannot be used to send data. Why? Firstly in the protocol used for checking for eavesdroppers you end up discarding around 3/4 of the photons sent, with no way of predicting which ones, and secondly you really need to be sending random data to make it completly secure. The result is both parties end up with a random key, and you know with absolute certainty that no-one else has it. Compare with your "
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:2)
No, the key for a one time pad is just as long as the data itself. So if the quantum network has too little bandwidth to send the whole message, it also has too little bandwidth to send the key for a one time pad.
I am curious why the quantum net itself is necessarily slow? It can't just be that 3/4 of the photos
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Yes, you can only send as much data as you have key (well securely anyway), but thats not the reason for only using the quantum channel (fibre) for key distribution. The point is that you need to send a completly random string of data down your channel, and then completly at random discard about 3/4 of this. So your left with a shared random key, which you can use as a one time pad to send your actual message.
The whole thing is slow (at the moment) as all the technology is very experimental and you need to
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Besides, if you're going to transmit as much key as you have message, why use two different lines at all? Why not use some currently "secure" method over the inherently secure quantum line, and not have to send twice as much data?
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:2)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:2)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1, Interesting)
Quantum cryptography is still vulnerable to a type of MITM where the interceptor (Eve) establishes herself as "Alice" to Bob, and as "Bob" to Alice. Then, Eve simply has to perform QC negotiations on both sides simultaneously, obtaining two different keys. Alice-side key is used to decrypt the incoming message, which is reencrypte
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:1)
Re:Using Diamonds Over FIber for Key Exchange? Huh (Score:2)
Re:Approx. (Score:2, Informative)
Anything can be stolen (Score:1)
If something can be read, and written - it can be copied. It might be harder using this technology, but as soon as it goes global - and the devices capable of generating a single photon impulse and reading an impulse like that are available (even if for a horrific price) the strategy goes to hell.
If someone is capable of listening on a optic fiber in the p
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:3, Informative)
The idea is that with these quantum particles you are transmitting the data by means of the "spin" property of the particles, rather than simple on/off pulses. The key point is that by measuring the spin you affect it and change it completely, meaning that anyone at the other end will know, because a
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2)
Public notice: If you see the word "Quantum" in a topic summary, and have no bloody clue, and are too lazy to research it; go right ahead and skip over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography [wikipedia.org]
In short, theoretically you cannot eavesdrop (successfully) on a link using quantum encryption. So that makes "practically" completely out of the question when someone has managed to get it down to single photon transmiss
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:4, Informative)
No no and no. I'm not meaning to be harsh but everything you said is misunderstood. The point is not to achieve security by doing things really slowly, the point of quantum cryptograhpy (wikipedias quite good [wikipedia.org]) is that if anyone intercepts your photons/information, you know about it. So you can resend the information, using a differenet channel, whatever. It is very important in crypto to be able to guarantee that no-one else has your key.
Entirely true in the classical, everyday world, and you'd think so on small scales (individual photons/atoms) too.. but actually wrong. Quantum states cannot be coppied (no cloning theorem [wikipedia.org]). This is where the security of quamtum cryptography lies. There's nothing to stop someone from eavesdropping on your fibre, but if they do intercept anything you know about it. The only way they can get information without you knowing is if you accidently send the information twice, ie two photons in a pulse instead of one. Thats where this research is useful, its anything but pointless.
I don't see how transmitting single photons at a time as opposed to the millions used today would give a speed increase, the fastest quantum cryptography demonstrated so far achieved a rate of 500b/s, compared to 500Mb/s for normal fibre communication. It's only real purpose is cryptography.
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2)
That's true and key to the whole idea of quantum key exchange. People rarely mention the implications.
You can't conduct quantum key exchange through a repeater. The protocol is only useful for your friends and business partners who are within unboosted fiber range.
Raising the question, why not put your key material on a 400G disk, put that in a tamper-evident container, and ship it via one of the armored car services that routinely handle shipments worth USD tens of milli
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2)
Because even those get jacked from time to time. Yes, it's secure, but it's not totally secure. Remember, the point is to make sure that the key is never discovered. If you detect someone eavesdropping on your quantum key exchange, you scrap that exchange and repeat it until you get a clean, u
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2)
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2)
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That's not the point. (Score:2)
As another poster just said, it isn't about them not tapping the line, but rather that you instantly know if someone is listening in. Heck you could even automate it to shut off communication if someone taps the line.
Of course we are talking about easy DoS attacks, but this application is for those who need
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2)
Re:Anything can be stolen (Score:2)
Copying takes time. Any system like this would be carefully timed with an atomic clock on both sides so that a latency change would immediately be discovered. It has always been possible in a fiber system to detect an active man-in-the-middle by monitoring the latency.
This prevents passive listening, where a portion of the beam is split off and monitored. If you're only sending a single photon, there isn't a portion to split.
Still cheaper than Monster Cable (Score:2, Funny)
Surprisingly, the new diamond cables are still cheaper than Monster Cable.
Re:Still cheaper than Monster Cable (Score:2)
Re:Still cheaper than Monster Cable (Score:2)
Re:Still cheaper than Monster Cable (Score:2)
Has anyone found a defense for the Shamir attack? (Score:2)
QC doesn't work! (Score:2)
I'll say that again and again, until people listen:
Quantum criptography doesn't work!
Well, it does work on the sense that if you have a secure channel, you can use it to validate another channel. It doesn't work on the "do something usefull" sense of the word.
Now, growing diamonds are interesting, and may be usefull for lots of things. But not for quantum criptography, because QC is not usefull.
End of Rant (EOR)
Re:QC doesn't work! (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about!
Nor does your spellchecker... (Score:1)
Re:QC doesn't work! (Score:1)
It seems that a lot of people (in regards to the security of this) are missing the point. This particular project aims to secure the physical medium.
Points of attack
The exchange where the links are conne
Re:QC doesn't work! (Score:2)
Yes, it does what it is inteded to do. No, what it is intended to do is not useful. Let's go...
If an attacker is able to intercept and change the messages of any end. Let's say that A wants to talk to B, and S is able to intercept and change the messages (man in the middle). Now, S can autenticate with A and B, and none of them will notice him.
Mathematical cryptography avoids this problem by A knowing how to validade a message that only B can generate, and B knowing how to validate a message that only A c
Re:QC doesn't work! (Score:1)
Perhaps you mean guarantee?
Sorry to be such a spelling Nazi, but since you were so assertive, I figured you might as well spell it right.
Re:QC doesn't work! (Score:2)
Re:QC doesn't work! (Score:1)
There are practical implications. Any kind of repeater I can think of, built using today's technology, like transistors and integrated circuits, will insert a very high delay.
Suppose there is a 100Km quantum line between two points, and that the speed of light in the line is 200.000 Km/s, this will generate a very stable latency of 0.5 msec.
So depending on the accuracy of measuring this la
Re:QC doesn't work! (Score:2)
It will mostly benefit the military (Score:1)
Nobody even cares to encrypt email... I believe the main obstacle to more secure communications is human, not technical.
Why one photon? (Score:2)
Call the Fibre-tappers (Score:1)
PS: Hey! I managed to get RIAA and terrorism together
Growing Diamonds (Score:2)
Alpha Doggs Blog [networkworld.com] .
This is described as "The future of networking as seen through the works of university and other labs"; it's the best name for a tech blog that I've seen in a while.
Re:attack on quantum communication (Score:2)
How they'd communicate this arrangement is another issue.
Re:Dr. Fred (Score:1)
good one