[11138] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Quantum Computing Puts Encrypted Messages at Risk
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Amir Herzberg)
Fri Jul 19 13:35:12 2002
Reply-To: <amir@herzberg.name>
From: "Amir Herzberg" <inbox@amir.herzberg.name>
To: "'Hannes R. Boehm'" <hannes@boehm.org>,
"'Ian Hill'" <Ian@Protonic.com>
Cc: <cryptography@wasabisystems.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:10:00 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20020714144536.GA6053@boehm.org>
Hannes said,=20
> What we have here is a theory which is almost as old as the=20
> special theory of relativity and has not yet prooven wrong.=20
> This theory tells us that there is no way whatever, that a=20
> possible eavesdropper can listen to the key exchange.=20
I appreciate your statement and I am sure you have the experise in the =
area.
However, to rely on a security/crypto mechanism, I must see a proof I
understand, and I _never_ rely on `proof by intimidation`.=20
In this case, I'll like a proof showing reduction from a specific =
theorem
which is backed by many years of concentrated effort to break it. I am =
not
cynical, really. I will really appreciate if you provide me/us with
(reference) to=20
(a) historical evidence of a precise theorem/conjecture which withstood =
many
years of substantial scurtiny, and=20
(b) precise proof, with sufficient details for someone (like me) whose
physics is rusty (many years since my engineering school days...), =
showing
the reduction from the specific claims to the long-lived theorem.=20
> It also > tells us that if we=20
> use either a Quantum random number generator or an entangled=20
> photon QKD system, that=20
> we get absolutly random numbers.
Can you generate truly random numbers? Cool! Indeed, this is something =
which
in a sense is to be expected, based on the uncertainty principle. Of =
course,
for a complete QKD system this may be a small part; but this part could =
be
useful for many crypto systems, if it is really secure - and practical
(cost, size, etc.). Can you provide details on this?=20
As an aside note, the uncertainty principle may be an example of =
physical
theory which have withstood many years, but I doubt that it was really
tested using crypto principles. I mean, couldn't it just turn out that =
all
of the randomization in physics will some day turn out to be
pseudo-random??? After all, detecting the difference could be fairly
difficult, even if and when we learn the details of this supposed
pseudo-random generator, assuming it is a non-trivial one (after all =
even
the congruential generator was only fairly recently shown insecure!).=20
Regards, Amir Herzberg
See http://amir.herzberg.name/book.html for lectures and draft-chapters
from book-in-progress, `Introduction to Cryptography, Secure =
Communication
and Commerce`; feedback appreciated!
=20
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
