backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by The Paranoid A.. on Nov 1 at 6:23 PM


Quantum Cryptography Hailed to be Unbreakable  (Source: BBC News)
Quantum encryption uses photons to deliver encryption keys

Data security is paramount in today's sensitive business environments. Hackers today can get into networks that store financial data like bank accounts or credit card numbers and make off with millions in stolen property.

Encryption is used on most networks that store this sort of data, but encryption is not unbreakable. A new form of encryption has been introduced at a scientific conference in Vienna. According to BBC News, the new encryption method is called quantum cryptography and it's unbreakable.

A demonstration of the quantum cryptography system was performed on a network connecting six locations around Vienna. The locations were connected using standard fiber optic cable. The quantum cryptography was devised by Charles Bennett of IBM and Gilles Brassard of Montreal University.

The basis for the cryptographic system is described by Brassard, "All quantum security schemes are based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, on the fact that you cannot measure quantum information without disturbing it."

He continued telling BBC News, "Because of that, one can have a communications channel between two users on which it's impossible to eavesdrop without creating a disturbance. An eavesdropper would create a mark on it. That was the key idea."

The system sends faint beams of light containing single photons fired a million times per second from which a numerical key can be recovered. The advantage of the system is that if anyone eavesdrops on the communication between nodes the key is disturbed and the node shuts down. At the same time the hacked node shuts down the network is routed to another node to keep it running.

Two different methods are available to send the encryption key in the quantum system. One looks at the direction the photons are polarized and the other looks at the precise timing of the arrival of the photons. Any network using quantum cryptography put into use would have to be able to work with both types of encryption methods.

Dr. Hans Huebel from the Vienna University said, " We are constantly in touch with insurance companies and banks, and they say it's nearly better that they lose 10 million euros than if the system is down for two hours, because that might be more damaging for the bank. So that's what we have to prove, that we have a reliable system that delivers quantum keys for several weeks without interruption, and then they might be more interested."

DailyTech first reported on quantum computers for cryptography in August of 2007.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Unbreakable?
By BBeltrami on 10/9/2008 1:20:11 PM , Rating: 5
That smacks of "Never" and I'm skeptical. Obviously unbreakable based on today's technology.

That said, Scotty would clearly setup a feedback loop and use multi modal sorting to inject the realigned photons after they had been reset to their previous quantum state. It's simply a matter of setting the buffer to compensate for temporal drift using a tachyon pulse generated by the warp drive.




RE: Unbreakable?
By chmilz on 10/9/2008 1:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
You had me at "tachyon" <3


RE: Unbreakable?
By PhoenixKnight on 10/9/2008 1:42:16 PM , Rating: 5
Don't forget about rerouting the energy from the tachyon pulse through the main deflector array to generate a coherent inverse-tetrion beam to transmit a narrow-band, multi-spectral subspace carrier wave embedded with the photonic encryption.


RE: Unbreakable?
By BBeltrami on 10/9/2008 1:55:12 PM , Rating: 5
I believe that would have been LaForge's solution, but he would have slapped it together using pieces from a communcator attached to his visor.

That said, Spock could do it with a tricorder and vacuum tubes...


RE: Unbreakable?
By Motoman on 10/9/2008 2:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
...and Worf would just beat the information out of it.


RE: Unbreakable?
By FITCamaro on 10/9/2008 2:07:30 PM , Rating: 5
Worf. Chuck Norris of the 24th century.


RE: Unbreakable?
By ebakke on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Unbreakable?
By Motoman on 10/9/2008 2:50:32 PM , Rating: 5
Because for something like Star Trek/Babylon 5/whatever to actually happen in the future, "smart" people will have had to won out over "stupid" people in order for the technology to progress to that point, and to have the vision to extend man's reach to the stars.

In other words, a geek pipe dream.


RE: Unbreakable?
By BladeVenom on 10/9/2008 2:57:16 PM , Rating: 5
While in actuality we are heading towards Idiocracy.


RE: Unbreakable?
By MamiyaOtaru on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Unbreakable?
By catavalon21 on 10/9/2008 8:13:39 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Unbreakable?
By derwin on 10/10/2008 12:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Case in point...


LOL


RE: Unbreakable?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/10/2008 12:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Dang


RE: Unbreakable?
By feraltoad on 10/13/2008 9:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME actualite < ML actualitas. See actual, -ity]

All he needs is a time machine! Go back to 13c ask any man on the street and they would say, "Witches! Wizards! Burn them! Stone them! Well, this isn't the Renaissance, now is it? Witches!...".


RE: Unbreakable?
By Solandri on 11/1/2008 5:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
I kinda feel bad for any time travelers from the future visiting us. They gather a crowd in the street and tell them that global warming is a hoax. "Corporate-sellouts! Burn them!". Or they gather a crowd in the street and tell them that global warming is the greatest threat we face. "Enviro-wackos! Burn them!"

Well, at least we don't actually burn people anymore, at least not in RL.


RE: Unbreakable?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/14/2008 7:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, "analyzation" is also a word according to Merriam Webster. The word wanted there is simply "analysis."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analyzat...

Language is always changed by the illiterate.


RE: Unbreakable?
By FITCamaro on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Unbreakable?
By Souka on 10/9/2008 7:45:12 PM , Rating: 3
Long as all the ambassadors are hotties... I"m in for that future... :)


RE: Unbreakable?
By Diesel Donkey on 10/10/2008 11:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, that Ambassador Kosh was HOT!


RE: Unbreakable?
By Samus on 10/10/2008 9:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
I guess there is no Battlestar love here :)


RE: Unbreakable?
By Adonlude on 10/13/2008 4:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Im sure many of us love Battlestar, myself included, but that is definately not a future anyone wants to wish upon mankind.


RE: Unbreakable?
By Major HooHaa on 10/28/2008 12:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
'Because for something like Star Trek/Babylon 5/whatever to actually happen in the future, "smart" people will have had to won out over "stupid" people in order for the technology to progress to that point, and to have the vision to extend man's reach to the stars.'

There is some truth in this, we all work together for a better future... Or we could just have another war.

Historically, advanced cultures have risen, over-reached themselves and then come crashing down with much of their knowledge being lost, only to be rediscovered and/or reinvented by some future (and therefore superior?) civilisation. We are still working out what was previously known by different, long dead civilisations and they continue to surprise us.


RE: Unbreakable?
By poundsmack on 10/9/2008 2:52:49 PM , Rating: 1
ya to much star trek references, i mean jeez way to play into the geek stereotype. ;)

as for me, well, I would just use the force... :)


RE: Unbreakable?
By Mr Perfect on 10/10/2008 1:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. It's just that no one has mentioned a Six or an Eight yet!


RE: Unbreakable?
By overzealot on 10/12/2008 11:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
Of course not. We roll 20's.


RE: Unbreakable?
By FITCamaro on 10/9/2008 4:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I'm not. I'm a much bigger Star Wars fan.

But it was funny.


RE: Unbreakable?
By therealnickdanger on 10/9/2008 2:53:48 PM , Rating: 5
You say that as if Chuck Norris won't be around in the 24th century...? I know for a fact that he could round-house Death in the face and survive.


RE: Unbreakable?
By PhoenixKnight on 10/9/2008 3:02:42 PM , Rating: 5
I'm pretty sure FIT has already been round-house kicked in the face for implying that Chuck Norris won't be around in the 24th century.


RE: Unbreakable?
By therealnickdanger on 10/9/2008 3:16:11 PM , Rating: 5
Chuck Norris exists outside of known time and space. Past, present, and future are one. Whether he round-housed you when you were a child, round-housed you today, or will round-house you 30 years from now, the result is the same: you die. FIT will meet his end at Chuck Norris's hands (or boot in this case) for his sacrilege, the "when" is irrelevant.


RE: Unbreakable?
By FITCamaro on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Unbreakable?
By PhoenixKnight on 10/9/2008 6:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. And you're the one who pissed him off by assuming he wouldn't be around in the 24th century. Sucks to be you.


RE: Unbreakable?
By on 10/9/2008 10:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
the line of camaros could be around longer then you think ;)

"for each of us that dies, 2 more step up to take his place"


RE: Unbreakable?
By PhoenixKnight on 10/10/2008 12:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
Were you all formed when Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked FIT in the face, thus ripping apart the very fabric of reality and shattering the barriers between dimensions, causing versions of FIT from alternate dimensions to spill forth into this one? Sorta like the resonance cascade in Half Life, except with FITCamaros instead of head crabs and vortigaunts?


RE: Unbreakable?
By Motoman on 10/9/2008 5:02:43 PM , Rating: 5
Chuck Norris invented the spacetime rift by slamming 2 Bose-Einstein condensates together at superluminal speed with his thumb and pinky finger.


RE: Unbreakable?
By PhoenixKnight on 10/9/2008 2:09:02 PM , Rating: 5
True, but as ingenious as Spock's solution is, if used within 3000km of a transwarp conduit, would produce a subspace eddy resulting in a gravimetric shear in excess of 3 TeraCochrans.


RE: Unbreakable?
By arazok on 10/9/2008 2:38:09 PM , Rating: 5
I just guessed it. The password is ‘admin’.


RE: Unbreakable?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/9/2008 3:42:21 PM , Rating: 3
Nah, the password was 'password'.


RE: Unbreakable?
By Mitch101 on 10/9/2008 4:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
42


RE: Unbreakable?
By FITCamaro on 10/9/2008 4:45:27 PM , Rating: 3
12345


RE: Unbreakable?
By Mitch101 on 10/9/2008 4:47:00 PM , Rating: 5
Damn now I have to change the combination on my Luggage!


RE: Unbreakable?
By catavalon21 on 10/9/2008 8:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
:-)

What was the question?

LOL


RE: Unbreakable?
By elpresidente2075 on 10/10/2008 10:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it was Myspace1


RE: Unbreakable?
By fstar1 on 10/9/2008 3:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you mean stone knives and bear skins?


RE: Unbreakable?
By PhoenixKnight on 10/9/2008 4:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
You're thinking of MacGyver.


RE: Unbreakable?
By on 10/9/2008 10:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
nah thats more a toothpick and a napkin


RE: Unbreakable?
By nosfe on 10/9/2008 1:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
hey, that can't be right, you haven't reversed the polarity!


RE: Unbreakable?
By iheartzoloft on 10/9/2008 1:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
You have "unleashed the hounds" or should I say nerds w that post, well done indeed.


RE: Unbreakable?
By Joz on 10/9/2008 2:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man 10 for his post.


RE: Unbreakable?
By bubba551 on 10/9/2008 2:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
and if my grandmother had wheels she would be a wagon!


RE: Unbreakable?
By InvertMe on 10/9/2008 2:58:42 PM , Rating: 5
Unbreakable until someone finds the sticky note under the keyboard.


RE: Unbreakable?
By SpaceJumper on 10/10/2008 9:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
Gravity sensor shall be able to detect the gravity fluctuations when the beam is passing by.


RE: Unbreakable?
By BigPeen on 10/11/2008 1:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, it isn't breakable, period. It'd fundamentally impossible to break it if done correctly


Give it another year
By GGA1759 on 10/9/2008 1:16:51 PM , Rating: 5
If you build it, they will hack it.




RE: Give it another year
By djkrypplephite on 10/9/2008 1:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think what these developers fail to realize is the will of hackers to break systems called "unbreakable". There is always a way around it. They're probably just not thinking of it.


RE: Give it another year
By Motoman on 10/9/2008 1:28:42 PM , Rating: 3
...the issue being that in this case, to "break" it would require a fundamental "breaking" of the laws of physics.

So...impossible? Technically, no - but it would mean that we've missed something truly basic about the way the universe works...and in this case, that is pretty hard to believe.

But I'd believe it if someone presented a peer-reviewed technique for breaking it. That's what science is for.


RE: Give it another year
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2008 6:21:20 AM , Rating: 2
That would be fun news. "Heisenberg principle proved wrong by hacker group !".

But it would also mean progress for the scientific community. Sooner or later someone will discover the Heisenberg principle can be worked around on. I have great hope in it.


RE: Give it another year
By Iger on 10/10/2008 6:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
I love the use of the word "basic" in regard of quantum physics :)


RE: Give it another year
By Oregonian2 on 10/9/2008 1:49:23 PM , Rating: 5
Um... you just hook into data before or after it hits the encryption boxes. Voila! Tapped.

That was hard. Next challenge!

:-)


RE: Give it another year
By Muirgheasa on 10/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Give it another year
By ebakke on 10/9/2008 2:42:15 PM , Rating: 4
DoS isn't a hack - it's a DoS. No information is compromised, it's just unavailable for a period of time.


RE: Give it another year
By ebakke on 10/9/2008 2:41:43 PM , Rating: 3
I wasn't aware that banks provide hackers physical access to their machines.


RE: Give it another year
By Spuke on 10/9/2008 3:15:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I wasn't aware that banks provide hackers physical access to their machines.
That's why they're called "hackers". LOL!


RE: Give it another year
By ebakke on 10/9/2008 3:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you got me there!


not impossible to eavesdrop
By Chernobyl68 on 10/9/2008 1:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
unless the human ear can listen to light, this is not impossible to eavesdrop on. get a parabolic or laser microphone and I'll hear you across the park. If the link goes over a satellite I'm sure the NSA will hear it. Fiber optic needs boosters to go truly long distances (trans-oceanic, coast to coast, etc) do these boosters interrupt the quantum state? I'm guessing yes...




RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By MrBlastman on 10/9/2008 1:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
They would use a repeater, not a booster.


RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/9/2008 2:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Break into the repeater then. Unless you had a solid piece of fiber that could transmit the distance between A and B, you've got security breaches.


RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By quickk on 10/9/2008 6:46:16 PM , Rating: 3
The point of quantum encryption schemes is not to make it impossible to eavesdrop, but to make it impossible to eavesdrop without being detected. So yes, it would be possible for an opponent to listen in on your transmission and eventually get enough info to determine its contents, but you would know that it happened.


RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/9/2008 8:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, as a signal is passed through devices normally, it can be recorded and it should not impact it at all. How the hell does the encryption stream know that I'm committing itself to disk while I pass it on? It can't.


RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/9/2008 8:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
I will clarify, while their demonstration showed that attempts to intercept it were noticed due to a degredation in the signal thus altering it, I can't imagine that there is no way to "listen in" while the traffic flows freely. I don't doubt that the encryption it uses might be unbreakable(for the moment), but not being able to intercept and record the packet stream seems quite impossible even when you consider quantum mechanics.

Rule #1- The minute you say something can't be done, it sets in motion the determination for someone to figure out just how to do it. Humans have been doing this forever.


RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By NarcoticHobo on 10/11/2008 2:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your Rule #1 I don't think you quite understand the principle of quantum mechanics this works under.

With the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle the act of observing something irrevocably changes it. So yes if you are recording something to disk it would "know" you were doing so.

It's like Schrodinger's cat, set up the system where a cat in a box has a 50% chance of dying upon pressing a button. After pressing the button the cat exists in the box as both alive and dead, and only by opening the box does it become one or the other. This is a difficult concept to comprehend because it requires grasping that an object can exists in two states simultaneously, and that somehow simply observing that object causes it to cease being in dual state form.

The only way around this would be to somehow observe it without observing it. Which seems contradictory... but hey, so does being alive and not alive at the same time.


RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By coolPC on 10/11/2008 1:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
the question is not if the cat is alive or dead. the question is "does the cat exist if it is not observed?"


RE: not impossible to eavesdrop
By quickk on 10/16/2008 4:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Quantum mechanics is very strange, and is extremely counter-intuitive. While it is easy to record classical information without disturbing or altering it, the same cannot be said for quantum information.

In simplest terms, quantum communication involves the transmission of quantum states which are composed of superpositions of many different possibilities. As soon as you make a measurement on a quantum state, this state collapses into one of the possibilities. The outcome of your measurement will be one of these possibilities (called an eigenstate). Once the measurement is made, you cannot return the quantum state to the way it was before (you don't even know what the different possibilities were---you only got one outcome). The intended recipient will notice that the message had been tampered with because the decryption scheme relies on the fact that the state is still in a superposition of different possibilities.


This is fundamentally unbreakable/unhackable
By the goat on 10/9/2008 3:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
All you guys posting about this being hacked once somebody sets there mind to it are wrong. This is not something that is really really extremely hard to hack. This is impossible to hack.

Based on the most advanced scientific theories, this system is unbreakable. The only way to hack this system is to first discover that our understanding of quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed.

It is not out of the question that a more advanced scientific theory will come along that disproves quantum mechanics. But that will not result in a system like this suddenly being hacked.

After all Einstein's theory of general relativity proved Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. But NASA still used Newton's equations to go to the moon and back.




RE: This is fundamentally unbreakable/unhackable
By GeorgeH on 10/9/2008 3:48:04 PM , Rating: 5
Not to be overly pedantic, but Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong - he proved that Newton's equations were a limit of a deeper theory.


By the goat on 10/10/2008 9:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to be overly pedantic, but Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong - he proved that Newton's equations were a limit of a deeper theory.


So Einstein simply revised and extended Newton's theory after Newton was dead? No General Relativity is a separate theory from the theory of Gravity (Newton's Universal Gravitation).


By TestKing123 on 10/9/2008 4:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
This needs to be mentioned one more time to hammer the point in. Einstein did NOT "prove Newton wrong" any more than Quantum Mechanics "proved Relativity wrong". Relativity takes over where Newton's equations fail, just as Quantum Mechanics takes over where relativity fails.

And, you're wrong. This is not IMPOSSIBLE to hack. The point of this system is still to generate an encryption key. A true Quantum computer (if ever created) will be able to break the encryption scheme.


RE: This is fundamentally unbreakable/unhackable
By the goat on 10/10/2008 9:00:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This needs to be mentioned one more time to hammer the point in. Einstein did NOT "prove Newton wrong" any more than Quantum Mechanics "proved Relativity wrong". Relativity takes over where Newton's equations fail, just as Quantum Mechanics takes over where relativity fails.


Wow you must not understand General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. These two theories do not cover the same subject. Relativity deals only with large objects. Where Quantum Mechanics deals only with small objects. Where each theory applies is clearly defined in the theory itself. There is no confusion about this. So there is no way for one of these theories to disprove the other. They are fundamentally separate branches of physics.

Please explain how General Relativity didn't disprove Newton's theory of Gravity? they both are defined as explaining the same physical phenomenon. The theory of Gravity includes equations which have been proven to be inaccurate (always, even if only a tiny bit). The theory of General Relativity includes equations describing the exact same thing that have not been proven wrong.

You seem to be saying that Newton's theory of Gravity only applies in certain cases where the margin of error is small and unimportant. Therefore it has not been proven wrong. Sorry but that makes no sense.

quote:
And, you're wrong. This is not IMPOSSIBLE to hack. The point of this system is still to generate an encryption key. A true Quantum computer (if ever created) will be able to break the encryption scheme.


Again you don't seem to understand the subject at hand. The point of this new system is not to generate an encryption key . The point is to see if the message you are receiving has been observed .

Of coarse you can intercept this signal and read the message. But with this system the intended receiver will know that the message was intercepted somewhere. Simply observing the transmission changes the transmission . Once that happens the receiver would tell the transmitter to stop sending. This results in basically no information falling into the wrong hands. The data can be transmitted such that one packet of info in the wrong hands is worthless (even with a quantum computer).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/10/2008 11:17:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Simply observing the transmission changes the transmission .

I still get the feeling that there is a way around this problem. I'm aware of the current theories but Quantum Mechanics is in general a very very wooly discipline with very little explained in great detail. It's more of a collection of observations of things that don't seem to work the way we think they should.


By coolPC on 10/11/2008 12:57:37 PM , Rating: 1
don't the laws of thermodynamics come into play. there is always a loss of energy. the only thing necessary to "observe" the transmission is finding a way to interpret the leaked/lost energy.


Bruce Willis is the only Unbreakable
By chmilz on 10/9/2008 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 5
Pfft! This technology will be cracked in no time. Not as easily as cracking Mac OSX mind you, but it will be cracked.




By Mojo the Monkey on 10/9/2008 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
While I generally agree with the "hackers find a way" principle, I really enjoyed your comment title.


By bunnyfubbles on 10/9/2008 2:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
All you have to do is threaten the system with a body of water! It might be unbreakable, but it can still drown!


Broken already?
By RIPPolaris on 10/10/2008 3:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
If I'm not mistaken, a group of researchers from MIT claim to have hacked quantum cryptography at least a year ago.




RE: Broken already?
By tedrodai on 10/10/2008 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
This exact form of quantum cryptography? Just posing the question, because I don't know. They are using 'quantum cryptography' as a buzzword for this method they've come up with, but surely we humans can figure out more than one way to utilize quantum mechanics for cryptography.

Anyways--I, too, don't believe for a second this method is unbreakable. It would just be incredibly funny if people had already hacked it before this BBC article was published.


hackers
By del on 10/16/2008 12:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
What's up with all of the useless comments at the top?

Anyway... as far as we know today, quantum encryption cannot be hacked. And 99.9% of hackers know absolutely nothing about quantum electrodynamics or physics in general. Furthermore, unless they are very intuitive and come up with a new theory (yeah, right), then quantum cryptography can't be hacked.




RE: hackers
By MarkHark on 10/16/2008 5:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
Useless?? What you're talking about?

And, did you happen to notice most of them got a "5" rating?


It's breakable, and very easily done as well.
By eickst on 10/9/2008 1:47:58 PM , Rating: 1
You just not a banging hot chick to cozy up to the quantum physicist who sets it up and he will give her all the information she wants.




By The Irish Patient on 10/9/2008 2:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
More realistically, a member of the Russian mob with a knife held to the throat of the physicist's or banker's child.

That's the concept behind pretty good privacy versus "absolute" privacy. Every system fails when the benefits to the attacker outweigh his value in human life. A system is pretty good if it protects up to that point. No system protects beyond it.


Sure..
By theslug on 10/9/2008 3:43:31 PM , Rating: 3
The boys in Ryan's lab can make it hack-proof...




Direct link only?
By nafhan on 10/9/2008 2:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not an expert on fiber optics and/or quantum cryptography. It seems like this would only work with a direct and uninterupted fiber link between sender and receiver, and any repeaters or routers along the way would cause problems for this system.




"Listen now!"
By Clauzii on 10/9/2008 2:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
"It's un-breeeekable!" :D




ok
By sprockkets on 10/9/2008 2:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
The only difference btw this and current systems, from what I read, is that in this new setup, you know if someone is hacking, as opposed to not knowing, thereby rerouting the information. This system still probably uses the same encryption that can be broken; it just adapts before it can be broken.




Useless
By Segerstein on 10/9/2008 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it might be able to detect intrusions much quicker. But what would the result be? Break of communication?

Besides, you would need a dedicated point to point cable. Forget internet, external ISP or even IP protocol.




LOL
By Mikescool on 10/9/2008 4:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
they forgot about social engineering and the idiot who is gonna send the password through an email. LOL




Unbreakable?
By kontorotsui on 10/10/2008 6:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
Your overconfidence is your weakness.




The method may be foolproof
By coolPC on 10/11/2008 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
The method may be foolproof but the analog hole emerges eventually.




DoS
By hydmoghul on 10/14/2008 3:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they considered a DoS attack on such a system.

While it may be unbreakable, it will still allow a malicious person to bring down the network




What about wireless?
By The Paranoid Android on 11/1/2008 6:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
More and more internet transactions are happening on wireless connections, and this system is only for a fibre-optic network. Will there ever be a quantum encryption system like this for wireless transmissions?




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki