4 ms·

Thanks for the reply! > You can't prove that you can trust the carrier. I said that I physically carry DROBO two to my intended recipient. I can trust myself

Thanks for the reply! > You can't prove that you can trust the carrier. I said that I physically carry DROBO two to my intended recipient. I can trust myself. > Also you can't prove that someone doesn't sniff the traffic when you copy it to your second DROBO and you can't prove that none of the drives have been copied afterwards. There is no such thing as secure communication. Copying data from one DROBO to another DROBO is about as secure as I could possibly imagine. Physical security is a failure point in any system. As much as I can trust my sending location, and my receiving location, I can trust this system. > compared to (the theory of) quantum cryptography it has many flaws. Compared to quantum cryptography: I can't prove that I trust the person who set up the quantum cryptography system. I can't prove that someone doesn't sniff my connection to my quantum key system. I can't prove that someone doesn't sniff the data coming out on the receiving end. I think this all boils down to physical security - which is a problem in any secure communication system. And I think my two DROBO, ten HD, one hardware random number generator, one round-trip plane ticket, system is about - mmm - 4 to 6 orders of magnitude cheaper.

ThomPete 15y ago
Even if you carry it yourself then you don't necessarily know if it was used right?
- VikingCoder 15y ago
  ...true of all cryptography systems. Meaning: my proposed system is no more or less vulnerable than any other, in this regard.
tjoff 15y ago
True, if I'm allowed to treat the quantum crypto system as a black box mirroring the DROBOs should be considered a black box as well. But can you trust yourself to not take a large enough bribe? What if someone hold someone special in hostage? If you only have to convince yourself (quite limiting scenario) I see no, major, problem with your setup. This of course assuming you have eye-contact with the DROBO at all times etc. etc. Most scenarios however you can't have as much trust in the carrier as you have in yourself. But I agree. When reading quantum cryptography and its issues I often get the feeling that its all a bit silly. But I totally get the motivation about it, it's extremely enticing. However, I see why some likes to claim that quantum cryptography is just a way for physicists to get paid :P But there seems to be a market for it and I have no idea how far it can go.

ThomPete 15y ago

Even if you carry it yourself then you don't necessarily know if it was used right?

VikingCoder 15y ago
...true of all cryptography systems. Meaning: my proposed system is no more or less vulnerable than any other, in this regard.

tjoff 15y ago

True, if I'm allowed to treat the quantum crypto system as a black box mirroring the DROBOs should be considered a black box as well. But can you trust yourself to not take a large enough bribe? What if someone hold someone special in hostage? If you only have to convince yourself (quite limiting scenario) I see no, major, problem with your setup. This of course assuming you have eye-contact with the DROBO at all times etc. etc. Most scenarios however you can't have as much trust in the carrier as you have in yourself. But I agree. When reading quantum cryptography and its issues I often get the feeling that its all a bit silly. But I totally get the motivation about it, it's extremely enticing. However, I see why some likes to claim that quantum cryptography is just a way for physicists to get paid :P But there seems to be a market for it and I have no idea how far it can go.