Quantum Cryptography Final Version
Quantum Cryptography Final Version
A
SEMINAR REPORT
ON
QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY
Session 2010-2011
Submitted to Submitted by
Mrs. Rubal Gill and Miss Anjali Panday Seminar Coordinator Amit Sharma
8th Semester(ComputerEngineering) Computer Science
07EAICS016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to extend a warm acknowledgement to all those who have contributed a lot for the
successful completion of this seminar report and helped me with their valuable guidance and
suggestions for improvement. Mainly, I am extremely grateful to our Head of Department Mr.
C.M. Chaudhary for supporting me with best facilities and atmosphere for creative work and
innovations.
In addition to that, I would also like to thank the seminar coordinator Mrs. Rubal Gill and Miss
Anjali Panday for her support and supervision that helped me a lot throughout the task. Also, the
cooperation of my friends cannot be overlooked.
Most of all, I would like to thank my parents and the almighty without whose blessing I would
not be able to accomplish my goal.
AMIT SHAMRA
ABSTRACT
Quantum cryptography uses quantum mechanics to guarantee secure communication. It
enables two parties to produce a shared random bit string known only to them, which can be used
as a key to encrypt and decrypt messages.
An important and unique property of quantum cryptography is the ability of the two
communicating users to detect the presence of any third party trying to gain knowledge of the
key. This results from a fundamental part of quantum mechanics: the process of measuring a
quantum system in general disturbs the system. A third party trying to eavesdrop on the key must
in some way measure it, thus introducing detectable anomalies. By using quantum superpositions
or quantum entanglement and transmitting information in quantum states, a communication
system can be implemented which detects eavesdropping. If the level of eavesdropping is below
a certain threshold a key can be produced which is guaranteed as secure, otherwise no secure key
is possible and communication is aborted.
Quantum cryptography is only used to produce and distribute a key, not to transmit any
message data. This key can then be used with any chosen encryption algorithm to encrypt and
decrypt a message, which can then be transmitted over a standard communication channel. The
algorithm most commonly associated with QKD is the one-time pad, as it is provably secure
when used with a secret, random key.
KEY WORDS:
qubit, uncertainty, entanglement, bit commitment, BB84 protocol, Ekert protocol,
key distribution, one-time-pad
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….…..5
2. CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY………………………………………………….………6
2.1. DEFINITION……………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………..…..6
2.3. LIMITATIONS…………...…………………………………………………………...…………….....8
3. QUBIT………………………………..……………………………………………….............9
4. QUATUM CRYPTOGRAPHY……………………………………….…….……………..11
4.1. UNCERTAINITY…………..……………………….…………….........…………………………….12
4.2. ENTANGLEMENT………………………...…………………….….........................................................13
6. OUTLOOKS…………………………………….……………………………………….….22
6.1. OTHER QUANTUM KEY DISTRIBUTION PROTOCOLS..……………………………………………..…...23
8. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………...27
1. INTRODUCTION
Two parties, Alice and Bob, wish to exchange messages via some insecure channel in a
way that protects their messages from eavesdropping. An algorithm, which is called a cipher in
this context, scrambles Alice’s message via some rule such that restoring the original message is
hard—if not impossible—without knowledge of the secret key. This “scrambled” message is
called the cipher text. On the other hand, Bob (who possesses the secret key) can easily decipher
Alice’s cipher text and obtains her original plaintext. Figure 1 in this section presents this basic
cryptographic scenario.
2. CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY
Overviews of classical cryptography can be found in various text books (see, e.g., Rothe
[2005] and Stinson [2005]). Here, we present just the basic definition of a cryptosystem and give
one example of a classical encryption method, the one-time pad.
For each k є K, there are an encryption rule ek є E and a corresponding decryption rule dk
є D, where ek: P→ C and dk : C→ P are functions satisfying dk (ek (x)) = x for each plaintext
element x є P.
In the basic scenario in cryptography, we have two parties who wish to communicate
over an insecure channel, such as a phone line or a computer network. Usually, these parties are
referred to as Alice and Bob. Since the communication channel is insecure, an eavesdropper,
called Eve, may intercept the messages that are sent over this channel. By agreeing on a secret
key k via a secure communication method, Alice and Bob can make use of a cryptosystem to
keep their information secret, even when sent over the insecure channel. This situation is
illustrated in Figure 1.
The method of encryption works as follows. For her secret message m, Alice uses the key
k and the encryption rule ek to obtain the ciphertext c = ek (m). She sends Bob the ciphertext c
over the insecure channel. Knowing the key k, Bob can easily decrypt the
Example 2.2 (One-Time Pad). For plaintext elements in P , we use capital letters and
some punctuation marks, which we encode as numbers ranging from 0 to 29, see Figure2. As is
the case with most cryptosystems, the ciphertext space equals the plaintext space. Furthermore,
the key space K also equals P , and we have P =C= K={0, 1, . . . , 29}.
Next, we describe how Alice and Bob use the one-time pad to transmit their messages. A
concrete example is shown in Figure 3. Suppose Alice and Bob share a joint secret key k of
length n = 12, where each key symbol kiє {0, 1, . . . , 29} is chosen uniformly at random. Let m =
m1m2. . . mnbe a given message of length n, which Alice wishes to encrypt. For each plaintext
letter mi, where 1 ≤ i ≤ n, Alice adds the plaintext numbers to the key numbers. The result is
taken modulo 30. For example, the last letter of the plaintext from Figure 3, “D,” is encoded by
“m12=03.” The corresponding key is “m12= 28,” so we have c12= 3 + 28 = 31. Since 31 ≡ 1 mod
30, our plaintext letter “D” is encrypted as “B.” Decryption works similarly by subtracting,
character by character, the key letters from the corresponding ciphertext letters. So the
encryption and decryption can be written as respectively ci= (mi+ ki) mod 30 and mi=(ci− ki) mod
30, 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
2.3. Limitations
discrete logarithm problem. But since these problems typically are not provably hard, the
corresponding cryptosystems are potentially insecure. For example, the famous and widely used
RSA public-key cryptosystem [Rivest et al. 1978] could easily be broken if large integers were
easy to factor. The hardness of integer factoring, however, is not a proven fact but rather a
hypothesis.1.We mention in passing that computing the RSA secret key from the corresponding
public key is polynomial-time equivalent to integer factoring [May 2004].
Second, the theory of quantum computation has yielded new methods to tackle these
mathematical problems in a much more efficient way. Although there are still numerous
challenges to overcome before a working quantum computer of sufficient power can be built, in
theory many classical ciphers (in particular public-key cryptosystems such as RSA) might be
broken by such a powerful machine. However, while quantum computation seems to be a severe
challenge to classical cryptography in a possibly not so distant future, at the same time it
offers new possibilities to build encryption methods that are safe even against attacks performed
by means of a quantum computer. Quantum cryptography extends the power of classical
cryptography by protecting the secrecy of messages using the physical laws of quantum
mechanics.
3. QUBITS
The most important unit of information in computer science is the bit. There are two
possible values that can be stored by a bit: the bit is either equal to “0” or equal to “1.” These two
different states can be represented in various ways, for example by a simple switch or by a
capacitor: if not charged, the capacitor holds the value zero; if charged, it holds the value one.
There exist many possibilities to physically represent a qubit in practice, as every quantum
system with at least two states can serve as a qubit. For example, the spin of an atom or the
polarization5 of a light particle can represent the state of a qubit. Even a cat with its two basic
states “dead” and “alive,” introduced by Schrödinger [1935] to visualize fundamental concepts
of quantum mechanics, might serve as a representation. The cat’s problem—or fortune from the
animal’s point of view—when being used as a quantum system is its sheer size compared to that
of an atom or light particle. There is no way to protect such a big quantum instance from
interaction with its environment, which in turn will result in decoherence of the superposition of
the cat.
The quantum analog of the bit is called qubit, which is derived from quantum bit. A qubit
|ψ) is an element of a two-dimensional Hilbert space, in which we can introduce an orthonormal
basis, consisting of the two states |0) and |1). Unlike its classical counterpart, the quantum state
can be in any coherent superposition of the basis states:
where α and β are, in general, complex coefficients. This is due to the fact that the
quantum mechanical equation of motion, the Schrödinger equation, is linear: Any linear
superposition of its solutions (the quantum states) is also a solution. Since we require quantum
states to be normalized, we find that the coefficients in (1) have to fulfill
4. QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY
Quantum cryptography is only used to produce and distribute a key, not to transmit any
message data. This key can then be used with any chosen encryption algorithm to encrypt (and
decrypt) a message, which can then be transmitted over a standard communication channel. The
algorithm most commonly associated with QKD is the one-time pad, as it is provably secure
when used with a secret, random key.
Quantum cryptography exploits the quantum mechanical property that a qubit cannot be
copied or amplified without disturbing its original state. This is the statement of the No-Cloning
Theorem [Wootters and Zurek 1982], which is easily proven: Assume there exists a unitary
where |0) is an arbitrary input state. If we equate the scalar products of the left-hand and
2
right-hand sides, it follows by the unitarity of U that (ψ1|ψ2) = (ψ1|ψ2) , which implies that (ψ1|
ψ2) equals 0 or 1. This means that we can copy only orthogonal or identical states. In contrast,
arbitrary unknown states cannot be perfectly cloned. (Note that orthogonal or identical states are
not viewed as “unknown” states, since we do know they are orthogonal, for example.)
The essence of this theorem is the main ingredient of quantum key distribution, where
Alice and Bob use a quantum channel to exchange a sequence of qubits, which will then be used
to create a key for the one-time pad in order to communicate over an insecure channel. Any
disturbance of the qubits, for example caused by Eve trying to measure the qubits’ state, can be
detected with high probability.
Quantum cryptographic devices typically employ individual photons of light and take
advantage of either the Heisenberg Uncertainity principle or Quantum Entanglement.
4.1. Uncertainity
4.2. Entanglement
It is a state of two or more quantum particles, e.g. photons, in which many of their
physical properties are strongly correlated. The entangled particles cannot be described by
specifying the states of individual particles and they may together share information in a form
which cannot be accessed in any experiment performed on either of the particles alone. This
happens no matter how far apart the particles may be at the time.
The BB84 protocol was proposed by Charles H.Bennett and Gilles Brassard [1984]. This
is the first protocol designed to employ quantum mechanics for two parties to agree on a joint
secret key. In this protocol, Alice and Bob use a quantum channel to send qubits. They are also
connected by a classical channel, which is insecure against an eavesdropper but unjammable.
Alice and Bob use four possible quantum states in two conjugate bases (say, the rectilinear
basis+and the diagonal basis×).We use |0)+ and |0)× = (|0)++|1)+ )/√2 for the classical signal “0,”
and we use |1)+ and |1)× = (|0)+ − |1)+ )/√2 for the classical signal “1.” Note that the two bases are
connected by the so-called Hadamard transformation
in the following way: We have H|0)+ = |0)× and H|1)+ = |1)× , and vice-versa, since
H2 = 1.
Alice randomly prepares 2n qubits, each in one of the four states |0) +, |0)×, |1)+, or|1)×,
and sends them to Bob.
For each qubit that Bob receives, he chooses at random one of the two bases (+ or ×) and
measures the qubit with respect to that basis. In the case of a perfectly noiseless channel, if Bob
chooses the same basis as Alice, his measurement result is the same as the classical bit that Alice
prepared. If the bases differ, Bob’s result is completely random.
Alice tells Bob via the classical channel which basis she used for each qubit. They keep
the bits where Bob has used the same basis for his measurement as Alice. This happens in about
half the cases, so they will have approximately n bits left. These are forming the so-called sifted
key.
Alice and Bob choose a subset of the sifted key to estimate the error-rate. They do so by
announcing publicly the bit values of the subset. If they differ in too many cases, they abort the
protocol, since its security cannot be guaranteed.
Finally, Alice and Bob obtain a joint secret key from the remaining bits by performing
error correction and privacy amplification.
Eve’s goal is to learn at least some part of the key. Thus, an obvious strategy for her is to
intercept the qubits being transmitted from Alice to Bob. She cannot simply copy the qubits,
since this would contradict the No-Cloning Theorem. In order to extract some information, she is
forced to measure (and thus destroy) them. But since she does not know the basis in which they
were prepared (Alice announces this information only after Bob received all signals), she can
only guess or just flip a coin for the selection of the measurement basis. In about half the cases,
she will happen to choose the same basis as Alice and get completely correlated bit values. In the
other half, her results will be random and uncorrelated. Bob certainly expects to receive
something from Alice, so Eve needs to send some qubits to him. However, she still has no idea
which basis Alice used, so she prepares each qubit in the same basis as she measured it (or she
chooses a basis at random). These newly created qubits again match Alice’s bases in only half of
the cases. After Bob receives Eve’s qubits, he measures them, and Alice and Bob apply the
sifting. Because of Eve’s disturbance, about half of Bob’s key was measured in a different basis
than it was prepared by Alice. Since Bob’s result is random in those cases, his sifted key will
contain about 25% errors. In the error-estimation stage, if Alice and Bob obtain such a high error
rate, it would be wise for them to abort the protocol.
If the error rate is below an agreed threshold value, Alice and Bob can eliminate errors with (classical)
error correction. A simple method for error correction works as follows: Alice chooses two bits at
random and tells Bob the XOR-value of the two bits. Bob tells Alice if he has the same value. In this case,
they keep the first bit and discard the second bit. If their values differ, they discard both bits. The
The last stage of the protocol is privacy amplification [Maurer 1993; Bennett et al. 1995]—a
procedure in which Alice and Bob eliminate (or, at least, drastically reduce) Eve’s knowledge
about the key. They do so by choosing random pairs of bits of the sifted key and replacing them
by their corresponding XOR-values. Thus, they halve the length of the key, in order to “amplify”
their privacy. Note that Eve has less knowledge about the XOR-value, even if she knew the
values of the single bits with high probability (but not with certainty).
Note that these simple methods for error correction and privacy amplification do not always
work. For the general case, there exist more sophisticated strategies.
The scheme relies on two properties of entanglement. First, the entangled states are perfectly
correlated in the sense that if Alice and Bob both measure whether their particles have vertical or
horizontal polarizations, they will always get the same answer with 100% probability. The same
is true if they both measure any other pair of complementary (orthogonal) polarizations.
However, the particular results are completely random; it is impossible for Alice to predict if she
Second, any attempt at eavesdropping by Eve will destroy these correlations in a way that
Alice and Bob can detect.
A commitment protocol is a procedure in which one party, say Alice, deposits a message
such that no one (and in particular not Alice) can read it nor change it. At some point in the
future, Alice can announce her message, and with high certainty it can be proven that the
revealed message is the same as the one Alice had deposited originally. To illustrate this
situation, suppose Bob wants to auction off a diamond ring, subject to the condition that each
person wishing to participate in the auction can bid only one single amount of money. After each
person has chosen a specific amount, the highest bidder gets the ring. So everyone writes their
own bid on a piece of paper, puts it into a personal safe, which is then locked and given to Bob.
Until all bids have been submitted to Bob, each bidder keeps the key matching the lock of his or
her safe. In this way Bob cannot see any of the bids, which in turn cannot be changed once they
have been submitted, since only Bob has access to the committed safes. All keys are handed over
to Bob after he has received all safes from the people participating in the auction. The different
offers are compared in public, so that everybody can be sure that only the highest bidder walks
away with the diamond and an empty wallet.
We can describe this commitment protocol mathematically as follows: The protocol has two
stages, the commit phase and the unveil phase. Alice commits herself to the data m by computing
c = f (m), and she sends c to Bob. Alice unveils the commitment by showing Bob the preimage m
of c. In classical cryptography, and in particular in public-key cryptography, one-way functions
are used for commitment. In quantum cryptography, we want to make use of the laws of
quantum mechanics to create a fair protocol for both sides. Bit commitment is a special case of a
commitment protocol, where the data m consists of only one single bit.
(3) If Alice wants to commit to 0, she does a quantum encoding of each bit wi in the two
basis states of the rectilinear basis +. If she wants to commit to 1, she encodes the bits in the
two basis states of the diagonal basis ×. Let θi denote the basis chosen for wi .
(5) Bob chooses a random measurement basis (rectilinear or diagonal) for each of the
×}n. He measures the ith state in the basis i , and denotes the outcome by .
If we take a look at the two density matrices for the n states corresponding to b = 0 and b = 1,
respectively, it is easy to see that they are the same, and equal to the identity matrix. Thus, Bob
(2) For about half of the n states, Bob used the same basis for his measurement as Alice used for
encoding. In these cases Bob can verify that Alice’s revealed bits are matching his
measurement results.
How could a dishonest party cheat in this protocol? For example, Alice could choose the bit
b = 1 for the commit phase, so she encodes the states with the diagonal basis ×. Later during the
unveil phase, she changes her mind and tells Bob that she committed to the bit b = 0, so Bob
assumes that Alice has used the rectilinear basis +. In approximately n/2 cases, Bob measures the
states with the rectilinear basis +, and in these cases Alice has to guess the bits Bob measured.
Since Alice’s success to make a right guess for one bit is 1/2, her overall cheating will not be
detected with a probability of (1/2)n/2. Once n is chosen large enough, Alice has practically no
chance to manipulate the protocol by this probabilistic method.
But what if Alice uses specially entangled states? Alice could create n pairs of entangled
states and send one part of each pair to Bob. She doesn’t have to commit to a bit in the
beginning, because she can perform a measurement right before the unveil phase. If, for
example, she chooses bit b = 0, she measures the states that she has kept in the rectilinear basis
+. Bob’s measurement results will be perfectly correlated, due to the shape of the entangled state.
If Alice wants to choose bit b = 1 instead, she measures the states that she has kept in the
◦
diagonal basis ×. The state is form-invariant under a basis rotation by 45 , Alice’s announced
encoded states will again match Bob’s measurement results. Thus, Bob has no chance to notice
the attack.
In theory, quantum cryptography works in the following manner (this view is the
"classical" model developed by Bennett and Brassard in 1984 - some other models do exist):
Assume that two people wish to exchange a message securely, traditionally named Alice
and Bob. Alice initiates the message by sending Bob a key, which will be the mode for
encrypting the message data. This is a random sequence of bits, sent using a certain type of
scheme, which can see two different initial values represent one particular binary value (0 or 1).
Let us assume that this key is a stream of photons travelling in one direction, with each of
these photon particles representing a single bit of data (either a 0 or 1). However, in addition to
their linear travel, all of these photons are oscillating (vibrating) in a certain manner. These
oscillations can occur in any 360-degree range across any conceivable axis, but for the purpose
of simplicity (at least as far as it is possible to simplify things in quantum cryptography), let us
assume that their oscillations can be grouped into 4 particular states: we'll define these as
UP/DOWN, LEFT/RIGHT, UPLEFT/RIGHTDOWN and UPRIGHT/LEFTDOWN. The angle
of this vibration is known as the polarization of the photon. Now, let us introduce a polarizer into
the equation. A polarizer is simply a filter that permits certain photons to pass through it with the
same oscillation as before and lets others pass through in a changed state of oscillation (it can
also block some photons completely, but let's ignore that property for this exercise). Alice has a
polarizer that can transmit the photons in any one of the four states mentioned - in effect, she can
choose either rectilinear (UP/DOWN and LEFT/RIGHT) or diagonal (UPLEFT/RIGHTDOWN
and UPRIGHT/LEFTDOWN) polarization filters.
Alice swaps her polarization scheme between rectilinear and diagonal filters for the
transmission of each single photon bit in a random manner. In doing so, the transmission can
have one of two polarizations represent a single bit, either 1 or 0, in either scheme she uses.
When receiving the photon key, Bob must choose to measure each photon bit using either
his rectilinear or diagonal polarizer: sometimes he will choose the correct polarizer and at other
times he will choose the wrong one. Like Alice, he selects each polarizer in a random manner. So
what happens with the photons when the wrong polarizer is chosen?
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that we do not know exactly what will
happen to each individual photon, for in the act of measuring its behavior, we alter its properties
(in addition to the fact that if there are two properties of a system that we wish to measure,
measuring one precludes us from quantifying the other). However, we can make a guess as to
what happens with them as a group. Suppose Bob uses a rectilinear polarizer to measure
UPLEFT/RIGHTDOWN and UPRIGHT/LEFTDOWN (diagonal) photons. If he does this, then
the photons will pass through in a changed state - that is, half will be transformed to UP/DOWN
and the other half to LEFT/RIGHT. But we cannot know which individual photons will be
transformed into which state (it is also a reality that some photons may be blocked from passing
altogether in a real world application, but this is not relevant to the theory).
Bob measures some photons correctly and others incorrectly. At this point, Alice and Bob
establish a channel of communication that can be insecure - that is, other people can listen in.
Alice then proceeds to advise Bob as to which polarizer she used to send each photon bit - but
not how she polarized each photon. So she could say that photon number 8597 (theoretically)
was sent using the rectilinear scheme, but she will not say whether she sent an UP/DOWN or
LEFT/RIGHT. Bob then confirms if he used the correct polarizer to receive each particular
photon. Alice and Bob then discard all the photon measurements that he used the wrong polarizer
to check. What they have, is, on average, a sequence of 0s and 1s that is half the length of the
original transmission...but it will form the basis for a one-time pad, the only cryptosystem that, if
properly implemented, is proven to be completely random and secure.
Now, suppose we have an eavesdropper, Eve, who attempts to listen in, has the same
polarizers that Bob does and must also randomly choose whether to use the rectilinear or
diagonal one for each photon. However, she also faces the same problem that Bob does, in that
half the time she will choose the wrong polarizer. But Bob has the advantage of speaking to
Alice to confirm which polarizer type was used for each photon. This is useless to Eve, as half
the time she used the wrong detector and will misinterpret some of the photons that will form
that final key, rendering it useless.
Furthermore, there is another level of security inherent in quantum cryptography - that of
intrusion detection. Alice and Bob would know if Eve was eavesdropping on them. The fact that
Eve is on the "photon highway" can become obvious because of the following.
Let's say that Alice transmits photon number 349 as an UPRIGHT/LEFTDOWN to Bob,
but for that one, Eve uses the rectilinear polarizer, which can only measure UP/DOWN or
LEFT/RIGHT photons accurately. What Eve will do is transform that photon into either
UP/DOWN or LEFT/RIGHT, as that is the only way the photon can pass. If Bob uses his
rectilinear polarizer, then it will not matter what he measures as the polarizer check Alice and
Bob go through above will discard that photon from the final key. But if he uses the diagonal
polarizer, a problem arises when he measures its polarization; he may measure it correctly as
UPRIGHT/LEFTDOWN, but he stands an equal chance, according to the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, of measuring it incorrectly as UPLEFT/RIGHTDOWN. Eve's use of the
wrong polarizer will warp that photon and will cause Bob to make errors even when he is using
the correct polarizer.
To discover Eve's nefarious doings, they must perform the above procedures, with which
they will arrive at an identical key sequence of 0s and 1s - unless someone has been
eavesdropping, whereupon there will be some discrepancies. They must then undertake further
measures to check the validity of their key. It would be foolish to compare all the binary digits of
the final key over the unsecured channel discussed above, and also unnecessary.
Let us assume that the final key comprises 4,000 binary digits. What needs to be done is
that a subset of these digits be selected randomly by Alice and Bob, say 200 digits, in terms of
both position (that is, digit sequence number 2, 34, 65, 911 etc) and digit state (0 or 1). Alice and
Bob compare these - if they match, then there is virtually no chance that Eve was listening.
However, if she was listening in, then her chances of being undiscovered are one in countless
trillions, that is, no chance in the real world. Alice and Bob would know someone was listening
in and then would not use the key - they would need to start the key exchange again over a
secure channel inaccessible to Eve, even though the comparisons between Alice and Bob
discussed above can still be done over an insecure channel. However, even if Alice and Bob have
concluded that the their key is secure, since they have communicated 200 digits over an un-
secure channel, these 200 digits should be discarded from the final key, turning it from a 4,000
into a 3,800 bit key).
Thus, quantum cryptography is a way to combine the relative ease and convenience of
key exchange in public key cryptography with the ultimate security of a onetime pad.
6. OUTLOOKS
The security of quantum key distribution relies on the inviolable laws of quantum
mechanics: nonorthogonal quantum states are used as signal states in the BB84 protocol. The
impossibility of perfect cloning of nonorthogonal states implies the security of this protocol.
In the security proof for the BB84 protocol, we have employed an equivalent
entanglement-based protocol. The main idea is that local measurements on a maximally
entangled state, shared by Alice and Bob, have perfectly correlated outcomes that can be used as
the key. A maximally entangled state is necessarily pure, and a pure state cannot be entangled
with an eavesdropper’s state—thus Eve cannot learn anything about the key. The idea for
quantum cryptography with entangled states goes back to Ekert [1991], who suggested to
confirm the existence of quantum correlations in the state of Alice and Bob by a Bell inequality
test.
A recently suggested protocol [Scarani et al. 2004] introduces a new sifting method:
rather than announcing the basis, Alice gives Bob a list of two nonorthogonal states from which
the signal state was taken. This protocol has certain security advantages that are connected with
experimental implementations of quantum cryptography.
The most commercially viable QKD systems rely on fiber-optic links limited to 100 to
120 km. At longer distances, random noise degrades the photon stream. Quantum keys cannot
travel far over fiber optic lines, and, thus, they can work only between computers directly
connected to each other.
As of March 2007 the longest distance over which quantum key distribution has been
demonstrated using optic fiber is 148.7 km, achieved by Los Alamos/NIST using the BB84
protocol. Significantly, this distance is long enough for almost all the spans found in today's fiber
networks. The distance record for free space QKD is 144km between two of the Canary Islands,
achieved by a European collaboration using entangled photons (the Ekert scheme) in 2006, and
using BB84 enhanced with decoy states[8] in 2007. The experiments suggest transmission to
satellites is possible, due to the lower atmospheric density at higher altitudes. For example
although the minimum distance from the International Space Station to the ESA Space Debris
Telescope is about 400 km, the atmospheric thickness is about an order of magnitude less than in
the European experiment, thus yielding less attenuation compared to this experiment.
In the BB84 protocol Alice sends quantum states to Bob using single photons. In practice
many implementations use laser pulses attenuated to a very low level to send the quantum states.
These laser pulses contain a very small amount of photons, for example 0.2 photons per pulse,
which are distributed according to a Poissonian distribution. This means most pulses actually
contain no photons (no pulse is sent), some pulses contain 1 photon (which is desired) and a few
pulses contain 2 or more photons. If the pulse contains more than one photon, then Eve can split
of the extra photons and transmit the remaining single photon to Bob. This is the basis of the
photon number splitting attack, where Eve stores these extra photons in a quantum memory until
Bob detects the remaining single photon and Alice reveals the encoding basis. Eve can then
measure her photons in the correct basis and obtain information on the key without introducing
detectable errors.
There are several solutions to this problem. The most obvious is to use a true single
photon source instead of an attenuated laser. While such sources are still at a developmental
stage QKD has been carried out successfully with them. However as current sources operate at a
low efficiency and frequency key rates and transmission distances are limited. Another solution
is to modify the BB84 protocol, as is done for example in the SARG04 protocol, in which the
secure key rate scales as t3 / 2. The most promising solution is the decoy state idea, in which
Alice randomly sends some of her laser pulses with a lower average photon number. These
decoy states can be used to detect a PNS attack, as Eve has no way to tell which pulses are signal
and which decoy. Using this idea the secure key rate scales as t, the same as for a single photon
source. This idea has been implemented successfully in several QKD experiments, allowing for
high key rates secure against all known attacks.
Future developments will focus on faster photon detectors, a major factor limiting the
development of practical systems for widespread commercial use. Chip Elliott, BBN's principal
engineer, says the company is working with the University of Rochester and NIST's Boulder
Laboratories in Colorado to develop practical superconducting photon detectors based on
niobium nitride, which would operate at 4 K and 10 GHz.
The ultimate goal is to make QKD more reliable, integrate it with today's
telecommunications infrastructure, and increase the transmission distance and rate of key
generation. Thus the Long-term goals of quantum key distribution are the realistic
implementation via fibers, for example, for different buildings of a bank or company , and free
space key exchange via satellites. Quantum cryptography already provides the most advanced
technology of quantum information science, and is on the way to achieve the (quantum) jump
from university laboratories to the real world.
8. REFERENCES
DAGMAR BRUSS, GÁBOR ERDÉ LYI, TIM MEYER, TOBIAS RIEGE, and JÖ RG ROTHE
ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 39, No.2, Article 6, Publication date: June 2007
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography
3. http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-6/p22.html
4. http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/dgottesman/QKD.html
5. http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~pablo/qbc/node4.html