[cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Jan 27 23:23:04 EST 2012
On Jan 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Noon Silk wrote:
> I think it's important to note that it's obviously completely wrong to
> say "QKD is snake-oil",
Some of us would disagree with that statement. Historically in the U.S., snake oil was something that promised a benefit over other remedies. QKD says it is "more secure" than current key establishment systems, however it is only practical in a very limited number of environments where those other key establishment systems would be just as secure.
> what you *can* say is that someone *selling*
> *any* demonstratably-insecure crypto device as a secure one, is snake
> oil. So, that is to say, you can only claim snake-oil in reference to
> a vendor and a device, not a field of research.
Again, we disagree. There are many fields of research that market themselves as useful when compared to other fields, and QKD is one of those.
More information about the cryptography