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

Noon Silk noonslists at gmail.com
Sat Jan 28 18:45:28 EST 2012


On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Noon Silk <noonslists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> be specific.
>
> I don't see how I could have been much more specific given the two
> things you quoted from me.

As I said, you could point to specific products that you have issues
with, not "QKD" at large (a collection of potential protocols and
implementations).


> Let's turn it around: what QKD products do
> you think are not snake oil today?  Please be specific (list products
> currently on sale) and back up the assertion with a rationale,
> remembering that this is in comparison to classical cryptography
> technology.  Feel free to also point to literature about QKD
> technologies perhaps not yet on the market but which might change
> everything, and again, back up your assertions.

Nice try, but I'm not the one making general claims about it. My
original comment to you was, it's not sensible to say "QKD is snake
oil", without direct reference to something. I didn't say I want to
argue about which products are or aren't (frankly, I don't know
anywhere near enough about them or their implementations to comment on
that).


> Nico
> --

-- 
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."



More information about the cryptography mailing list