[cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?
noonslists at gmail.com
Sat Jan 28 03:33:25 EST 2012
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> [BTW, I held off saying anything until the first post. I'd wanted to
> see how long we could collectively avoid the same old QKD thread. It
> took five hours to the first post, fourteen to get to the first
> significant disagreement.]
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Noon Silk <noonslists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it's important to note that it's obviously completely wrong to
>> say "QKD is snake-oil", 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.
> This has been covered to death by now, both today and in the past
> (search the archives of this and similar lists).
> Until we see scalable quantum authenticated quantum secrecy / key
> distribution, QKD is not suitable for production deployment.
Right, but two things: 1) who disagrees with that? not me, 2) this
isn't what my original comment was about.
> , but QKD as a product sure is.
Again, this is a useless statement in it's general form; you need to
Fancy a quantum lunch? https://sites.google.com/site/quantumlunch/
"Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy
of being this signature."
More information about the cryptography