First Quantum Cryptographic Data Network 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."
Quantum post (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh god no... (Score:1, Funny)
Will we know? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of this before, but seems resonable. Any sources?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Will we know? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will we know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re:Will we know? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
<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 t
Re: (Score:1)
Perfect case in point (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Will we know? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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, s
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Oblig wiki link [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will we know? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 versi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 pro
Re: (Score:2)
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 obt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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] -=-=-=-
The real question is... (Score:2, Funny)
Cheating! (Score:3, Funny)
Solution without a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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! (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Story reads like a press release (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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,
Link to BBN (Score:2)