[14215] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: quantum hype
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (martin f krafft)
Fri Sep 19 10:02:35 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:16:27 +0200
From: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>
To: crypto list <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Mail-Followup-To: crypto list <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C9A566C643ED6119E8900A0C9DE297A32486F@saturn.aculab.com>
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
also sprach Jill.Ramonsky@Aculab.com <Jill.Ramonsky@Aculab.com> [2003.09.19=
=2E1115 +0200]:
> The sender sends RANDOM BITS to the receiver. Those that don't get
> eavesdropped can then be concatenated at both ends to produce an
> identical string of random bits. Since this is known to both
> endpoint parties, and not to the eavesdropper, it can be used as
> a session key for symmetric encryption. So it is not true that you
> have "lost data" by being eavesdropped. You've only lost random
> bits, not real data.
Does reading a quantum bit destroy the bit or simply flip it? If the
latter, how then can you find out when a bit got read?
> No physical theory is _EVER_ "proven", only "corroborated by
> observational evidence". Quantum theory is consistently
> corroborated by observational evidence. For comparison, Newton's
> theory of gravity was never "proven", but it matched (almost) all
> observational evidence.
But Newton gets more wrong the faster you go. So it's not F =3D m.a,
that theory was only a good approximation, nothing more.
> We _can_ make this statement about Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle.
Sure we can. But I don't accept an argument that QC is bettern than
asymmetric crypto because the second is based on assumption, when
the first is just as well based on assumption.
Fact is, MagiQ is wrong in claiming theoretical security.
--=20
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
=20
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
=20
"arguments are extremely vulgar,
for everyone in good society
holds exactly the same opinion."
-- oscar wilde
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/awGrIgvIgzMMSnURAnIrAJ98QHzPgJWB+QxTH7PFyEsKslZ5VwCgq0Fo
/PhYj4vUTewIRCKw7NpWRM8=
=4s05
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
