4 ms·
I read it and you're right. I'm puzzled as to why they would think this 'scuppers' all of quantum cryptography. They also mention imperfect hardware, but hardwa
by bcl 15y ago
I read it and you're right. I'm puzzled as to why they would think this 'scuppers' all of quantum cryptography. They also mention imperfect hardware, but hardware always improves.
- beloch 15y agoThis obviously doesn't have any impact on those who own and trust the sender and receiver and only need to be cautious about what happens in between them. However, part of the desire for device independent security is that you can use public infrastructure without trusting it and still be certain that your communication is secure. i.e. If quantum networks replace/augment classical networks, can you trust them without controlling them? This work suggests that dream may be more difficult to achieve that previously thought, although the jury is most assuredly still out.
- Groxx 15y agoIsn't that everyone? Quantum crypto does nothing for authentication as far as I'm aware, so you still need to identify your recipient by some method. It requires hardware as far as I'm aware, so you still need to trust the sending and receiving hardware. Which leaves you with just the medium of transmission; if it's crypto you're trusting, the medium doesn't matter. If it's quantum effects for communicating, the only trick I'm aware of lets quantum-crypto-communication detect observers, which this 'scuppering' has no effect on.