[cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

Paul Hoffman 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.

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the cryptography mailing list