2 ms·
That might be obvious to a security/cryptography person, but it is not obvious to a physicist. The physicist will see "totally confidential channel" as a great
by holowoodman 2y ago
That might be obvious to a security/cryptography person, but it is not obvious to a physicist.
The physicist will see "totally confidential channel" as a great useful application. Because he lacks the knowledge that a confidential channel is totally useless without authentication. At best, the authentication will be hand-waved away in the grant application as "out of scope" or "future work".
- cryptonector 2y agoThe snake oil part comes from the business people, not from the physicist. And anyways, it's not that hard for the physicist to learn that there's no future in QKD, and indeed, the physicist wants to know that to avoid wasting their efforts. Being a physicist does not preclude knowledge of classical cryptography -- and vice-versa. The credentialist approach we take to all specialty knowledge has its limits, and we must acknowledge that. Credentials do not limit one's expertise, nor really do they prove it.