4 ms·
I'm in the camp that quantum cryptography (i.e. quantum key exchange) is silly. If quantum key exchange is not easier to use than a one-time pad, that's an argu
by dsacco 9y ago
I'm in the camp that quantum cryptography (i.e. quantum key exchange) is silly. If quantum key exchange is not easier to use than a one-time pad, that's an argument against both, not an argument for a one-time pad. One-time pads are approximately never worth their effort, and in the modal case would just encourage poorer security overall.
- jandrese 9y agoThe problem with one time pads is that you have to deliver the pad to your recipient first without it being observed in transit. This typically requires cumbersome physical security, and even then you can't be 100% sure. Transmitting the one time pad over a medium that you can be positively sure nobody has eavesdropped on could make it practical. If someone does eavesdrop on the signal than you ignore that one time pad. This is the technology that makes one time pads finally practical, at least in some cases.
- jacoblambda 9y agoI'd make the argument that one time pads are way more practical with access to quantum key exchanges.