NODE e83a8479Re: Quantum cryptography
Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>Fri, 28 Jan 94 13:02:22 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
W>Joi, NO. :-) I know there's been a Scientific American article on it
W>within the past few years that might have more technically-detailed
W>references.
That would be:
Citation: Scientific American, Oct 1992 v267 n4 p50(8)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Quantum cryptography. (unbreakable message transmission
system)
(includes related articles)
Authors: Bennett, Charles H.; Brassard, Gilles; Ekert, Artur K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjects: Quantum theory_Usage
Cryptography_Innovations
Reference #: A12677141
==========================================================================
Abstract: Quantum techniques have been used to develop a system that
allows two parties to exchange information in absolute secrecy. Quantum
cryptographic devices use individual photons of light and Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle. Eavesdropping causes a disturbance that alerts
the legitimate parties.
==========================================================================
Full Text COPYRIGHT Scientific American Inc. 1992
DCF
Who has an ASCII copy if ayone wants one.
--- WinQwk 2.0b#1165
NODE d3723e49Re: Quantum cryptography
"Joseph Reagle Jr." <reagle@gl.umbc.edu>Fri, 28 Jan 94 15:12:35 PST
On Fri, 28 Jan 1994, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Title: Quantum cryptography. (unbreakable message transmission
> system)
> (includes related articles)
I have done a great deal of reading on the subject including most
of the Physical Revew Letters, and in the end, I haven't seen the issue
of the Public Channel really addresssed.
In most articles it is explicitly assumed not to be a problem, or
not even considered.
But I think, if Eve is capable of manipulating the Public
Channel, she may be able to eavesdrop or deduce the message. I wrote a
paper on it, but don't have it about here. I could include my thoughts
in more detail in a couple of days... but has anyone else given it any
thought?
Regards,
Joe Reagle