[cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?
warren at kumari.net
Sat Jan 28 11:13:51 EST 2012
On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Noon Silk wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Steven Bellovin <smb at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>> Or at least that's what everyone thought. More recently, various groups have begun to focus on
>>> a fly in the ointment: the practical implementation of this process. While quantum key distribution
>>> offers perfect security in practice, the devices used to send quantum messages are inevitably
>> This is only surprising if you assume large values of "everyone". Anyone in the real world has
>> long since worried about implementations. Remember Bob Morris' Rule 1 of cryptanalysis: check
>> for plaintext. (http://www.ieee-security.org/Cipher/ConfReports/conf-rep-Crypto95.html)
> So why didn't one of these "real world" people point this out, to
> researchers? It's a bit too easy to claim something as obvious when
> someone just told you.
Fine. Good point.
For future reference (just so the researchers are aware, you understand):
Quantum foo does not protect against:
Stealing interesting things before they reach the encryption bit.
Employees who copy the plain text onto USB drives and take them home.
People who talk in their sleep.
Having a tree land on your car.
A feeling of angst.
<anything else that it outside of the accepted claims of what it is supposed to protect against>.
Do I win a lollipop now?
>> --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
> Noon Silk
> 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."
> cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at randombit.net
Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly.
-- Radia Perlman.
More information about the cryptography