4 ms·
The breakthrough claimed is that only one side (the router side) is equipped with a qubit detector, and end nodes only have quantum transmitters, and therefore
by harshreality 13y ago
The breakthrough claimed is that only one side (the router side) is equipped with a qubit detector, and end nodes only have quantum transmitters, and therefore the cost of deployment for each end node is much lower. This tech doesn't change the basic limitations of what quantum cryptography requiring trusted nodes can achieve: It only secures fiber links, and every router along a path still has to be trusted (ISPs have to be trusted and incorruptible, for instance). It also doesn't help prevent typical hacking, where nodes are attacked, not network links.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzRbU6y7Ks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzRbU6y7Ks for the quantum key exchange protocol. The protocol doesn't need a quantum back-channel. What has been "declassified" about this approach?
Whenever you purchase something online and you hit the ‘buy’ button and your computer seems to buffer, taking its sweet time to present you with the order confirmation page and you begin to doubt that the order went through successfully, “that’s because of the cryptography,” says Hughes. It takes time to create a secure line to transmit sensitive information, like your card number, between your laptop, eBay, and your bank. But “in our case that just wouldn’t happen,” says Hughes, “in principle [our invention] could speed up the Internet.”
Bad journalism. That quote is probably taken way out of context. Website delays usually have very little to do with cryptography, and everything to do with the web apps and backend databases or credit card processors being slow to process orders. The slow part of SSL encryption (key exchange) isn't that slow, and is probably already done before you submit an order, if the site uses a ssl session cache.
- bsmith 13y agoAgreed, andrewcooke's link (repeating here) is a better account: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-r.. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-r....
- pygy_ 13y ago> Bad journalism. And bad comment :-/ Nothing personal, this is intended as constructive criticism. You completely ignore the main point of the article, and come quibbling about an unrelated detail. This kind of comment often ends up at the top of the comment thread and obscures the comments that discuss the subject matter. Your point is rather obvious, and I suppose that you end up being upvoted by folks not knowledgeable enough to discuss TFA, but feel validated by the fact that they also spotted the error.
- sillysaurus 13y agoYou should restate the main point of the article and then explain why the top comment is a quibble about an unrelated detail. If the readers aren't as knowledgeable as yourself, then you have an opportunity to change that rather than complain about it.
- pygy_ 13y agoI'm not qualified to discuss the main point, but enough to separate chaff from wheat in this case. The article is about quantum cryptography. The author gives credit card processing as a layman example of encrypted communication, and states, erroneously, that the connection process is slow because of the SSL handshake. It is true that SSL increases latency, but it is not the main factor, as harshreality said. However, the example is an aside, and the error is a small aside in the aside. Not really worth discussing, and it definitely doesn't have its place at the top of the thread, where it was when I first posted. It is still currently the second comment. Note that harshreality improved his post after the fact... or did I miss the good bits when I first read it? Hoist with my own petard? If so, sincere appologies.
- harshreality 13y agoNothing else in the article was particularly worth discussing either; other comments are detailing how this is not a breakthrough, or making minor clarifications, with beloch's in particular highlighting an alternative that might actually have interesting applications.
- pygy_ 13y agoWhy comment, then?