n*********2
发帖数: 357 | 1 <<我觉得你的理解错了。量子态并不是不可以复制，但是一旦复制，就很容易被对方发
现>>
It might be easier to debate this in English. First, let me rush to say that
I am not a physicist and my understanding of QKE might be flawed.
Let's use photon as an example, since photon has been widely used in a
simplified version of quantum key exchange (QKE). In an oversimplified case,
photon can be either rectilinear (with an angle of 0 or 90) or diagonal (
with an angle of 45 or 135); this rectilinear/diagonal property is called
its orientation. ... 阅读全帖 |
|
n*********2
发帖数: 357 | 2 To find out the real value of Quantum Key Exchange (QKE), we have to compare
it against the existing/traditional authenticated key exchange protocols.
IF the best QKE protocol today still behaves like the original/1984 Quantum
Key Exchange protocol by Bennett and Brassard, which does require an
additional reliable channel for QKE to work, then it has NO additional value
/benefits over traditional authenticated key exchange protocols and there is
NO reason to sell QKE hard, as what is happening i... 阅读全帖 |
|
W**********U
发帖数: 132 | 3 Be nice, man. Your accusation is not fair.
That Chinese article obviously confused encryption with password security.
Quantum key exchange (QKE) obviously has NO practical benefits over
computational-complexity based encryption (such as RSA), as it still
requires a conventional reliable channel. Without a conventional reliable
channel, QKE is useless. On the other hand, if you have a conventional
reliable channel, then most probably you can use traditional public-key
encryption. So why bother wi... 阅读全帖 |
|
n*********2
发帖数: 357 | 4 <<第一第二方一旦发现有人在窃听，他们可以故意发过去一堆
错误的情报，第三方就失去窃听的意义了。>>
This statement is seriously flawed from security sense.
I would love to see myself proved wrong but my view is that some physicists
are making security claims without backup.
The fundamental questions remain unanswered: does QKE need a traditional
channel (for integrity) or not? If yes, QKE is not that useful no matter
what. |
|
