What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
32 Comments
- JQP123, on 06/18/2009, -0/+15As always, the weakest link in any security scheme lies somewhere between monitor and chair.
- fjs7, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4In an effort to expand on the misleading statements in this article:
"The idea is that any numerical code can be cracked, so rather than try to invent one that's unbreakable you settle for one that would take a really long time - everybody involved is dead because the sun has exploded five billion years later kind of long time. "
This is misleading because:
a) RSA and all asymmetric systems rely on a hard problem, such as factoring in RSA's case. Quantum computing has the potential to solve these hard mathematical problems in an extremely short time. However, it will not be devastating to symmetric algorithms that rely on the computational infeasibility of brute force.
b) A one time pad is provably secure, but infeasible for most applications.
"That's where quantum computers come in. "
Well yes, but other than a shared basis in quantum mechanics, quantum computing and quantum cryptography are on two isolated development paths. Quantum computing is still more theory than practice. This is where the article is really misleading, because recent developments in quantum crypto have no bearing on quantum computing.
"Remember - you can use the very basic physics of the universe to transmit an absolutely secure code around the globe, but you can't stop the person at the other end writing it on a yellow sticky on the side of their monitor."
Hands down the best point of the article. - Jektal, on 06/18/2009, -1/+5... A network-ready demonstration of quantum encryption by the end of the year? Wouldn't that require a network-ready quantum computer by the end of the year?
Last I knew the best quantum computer anyone had built were little more than pocket calculators. - skipvt, on 06/18/2009, -1/+5Reading this article made my head hurt.
- wesw02, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4Man, if I had a dollar for every time somebody claimed something was "unbreakable"...
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -1/+4Q~~~~~~ Encryption
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -0/+2STOP SPAMMING DIGG YOU DOUCHEMONKEY!!!!
- burnt1ce85, on 06/18/2009, -0/+2This technique is relatively old. I read about this a few years ago.
- Paranor01, on 06/18/2009, -0/+2PEBKAC
Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair - Pushkin, on 06/18/2009, -0/+2Still drôle
"Remember - you can use the very basic physics of the universe to transmit an absolutely secure code around the globe, but you can't stop the person at the other end writing it on a yellow sticky on the side of their monitor." - inactive, on 06/18/2009, -1/+3no. just a device that measures a photon's state. its like the lock. read about the stuff before talking about the stuff, bill orielly
- fjs7, on 06/18/2009, -1/+3Neat stuff, but its also misleading in some aspects
See Bruce Schnieders take on Quantum cryptography "Quantum Cryptography: As Awesome As It Is Pointless" http://www.schneier.com/essay-244.html - trunks7, on 06/18/2009, -0/+1no kidding!!
people like you ruin Digg!!!!
i'd sue you and your mother!!!!!!!!!!! - karlyguy, on 06/18/2009, -1/+2wasnt this posted a week ago?
- DankBuddz, on 06/18/2009, -1/+2Spelling Fail
- israfil334, on 06/20/2009, -0/+1wow this is so interesting, i finally feel the awesomeness :D.
how on earth do they manage to store the actual "values" of the qubits in lets say, memory? wouldnt everything have to be based off a completely new architecture? - invinciblechunk, on 06/18/2009, -1/+2The article is talking about two completely different kinds of "quantum" computer without making a clear distinction on which is which. Qubit-based computers are still impractical (and may never be, thanks to the fact it takes an exponential amount of time to cool them enough to observe the state). Using quantum effects to distribute keys, however, has already been done.
Blame the article, not the commenter. - skersh, on 06/18/2009, -0/+1This is pretty cool stuff, I did my 4th year university project on QKD. Specifically, comparing 2 related but different Algorithms, BB84 and NA06.
Once you figure a way to represent this stuff so it makes sense to you, it's really not that complicated (the QKD stuff, not actual Quantum Mechanics or anything like that). - israfil334, on 06/20/2009, -0/+1ty guys
- NathanielJ, on 06/18/2009, -0/+1Then learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB84
When you observe a quantum state, it doesn't get *completely* destroyed, it just collapses into a classical state. If you are clever with manipulating the state before you observe it, then you can make it collapse into useful classical states for you, but useless classical states for an eavesdropper. - janko10, on 06/18/2009, -1/+2Think they meant to say Apple, not Microsoft.
- NathanielJ, on 06/18/2009, -1/+2This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit is probably more directly related to your question.
Standard computers use zeroes and ones (bits). Quantum computers use "superpositions" of zeroes and ones, which you can intuitively think of as numbers between zero and one (qubits -- note that it's a bit more complicated than that, since complex unit vectors are used instead of real numbers between 0 and 1, but this way is easier to understand). Basically you can have qubits that are mixtures of regular bits. - Myztry, on 06/18/2009, -0/+1So if I'm 30cm from the exchange I should be able to ADSL_BB84 then?
Just ***** ya. Good to see you trying to explain the principle. - israfil334, on 06/18/2009, -1/+2"They operate using "qubits" which can be in every possible state at once - so an eight-qubit system could represent every possible 8 regular-bit piece of data. It still collapses into just one regular 8-bit state when you look at it"
Did anyone get that part? If so please explain. - fjs7, on 06/18/2009, -0/+1Basically he's referencing super positioning, where qubits can be in every possible state at once. And the observable state which can be used to represent 0 & 1 like bits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
- manitoba98xp, on 06/18/2009, -2/+2You are the weakest link! Goodbye.
</anne-robinson> - Myztry, on 06/18/2009, -1/+1Alice, Bob & Eve. LOL
Quantum physics is in many way like religion. Few are able to claim to have seen what it claims, and it seems wise for the rest of to remain skeptical in absence of proof of such ridiculous sounding claims...
Hello Mr. Telco - I'd like to order a quantum channel connection to receive my qubit encryption keys... - Myztry, on 06/18/2009, -1/+1Quantum particle encryption sounds self breaking - as in self-destructive.
If the particle pairs can't be observed/inspected at any point less they break down - how are they going to be used to encrypt/decrypt or be transportable. I haven't even got a fibre optic connection, let alone a fibre quantum connection...
Instead of worrying if someone can decrypt a stream they are interceting - you would instead have a 'denial of service' if anyone so much as observed the communication. I just don't get how it can work. - skersh, on 06/18/2009, -1/+1BB84 has been demonstrated in practice. I don't know what the current state of the technology is, but it was demonstrated originally at a distance of 30cm.
Keep in mind that this is not for everyday use. It's meant for the most secure data, and the companies that are willing to pay to have it implemented.
Look around the internet at BB84 stuff. The overall idea is actually quite simple with a very basic understanding of some of the concepts of quantum physics and computing. - dazparkour, on 06/18/2009, -2/+1I tend to sit between my chair and keyboard.
Hey! I'm not the weakest link! - inactive, on 06/18/2009, -1/+0im all for a security system that relies on the limits of physics for its strength.
- firebat9er, on 06/18/2009, -11/+2hellooooo ... hellooo .. hello. oooo
/echo
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is