- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Quantum encryption will be “broken” the same way as conventional crypto is: side channels. It’s nice to have, but it doesn’t solve the most common attacks.
This is a big breakthrough. If they can do it at 10m then the scale is unlimited.
It essentially should circumvent MITM attacks.
I think my question on all this would be whether this would ultimately cause problems in terms of data integrity.
Currently most amplifiers for digital information are going to capture the information in the light, probably strip off any modulation to get to the raw data. Then re-modulate that using a new emitter.
The advantages of doing this over just amplifying the original light signal are the same reason switches/routers are store and forward (or at least decode to binary and re-modulate). When you decode the data from the modulated signal and then reproduce it, you are removing any noise that was present and reproducing a clean signal again.
If you just amplify light (or electrical) signals “as-is”, then you generally add noise every time you do this reducing the SNR a small amount. After enough times the signal will become non-recoverable.
So I guess my question is, does the process also have the same issue of an ultimate limit in how often you can re-transmit the signal without degradation.
The way I interpreted the article, you aren’t amplifying the signal but transferring it. Same as store and forward. I think that implies that degradation is not a problem as long as the new photon profile was a match. The real problem is matching the profile which they only managed at 10 meters.
what about “bit rot” (but, y’know, tiny tiny bits)
Yep. I also valid concerns. But those seem to be their next steps. I just wondered if there would be degradation. You wouldn’t even be able to tell until it reached the destination.
Definitely interesting stuff.
What’s the use for this
Did you even read the article? Its mentioned right at the beginning.
Yeah and we already have post quantum encryption so what reason do we need a quantum internet
Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but… I’ll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.
Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.
The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that’s generally a “store and forward” operation and thus would also break this system’s detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it’s then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.
What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever “reading” it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as “unseen” (for want of a better word). As such this will allow “secure” (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.
Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.
Nar I get that. My point is what’s the point of transferring quantum information. The only advantage I can see is doing a single quantum computation via decentralised nodes that are a significant distance from each other. But by the nature of quantum computations its not a useful thing to do.
Bro, read. It’s literally in his comment.
If the data is intercepted, the receiver knowns. It’s a huge advantage.
Prevents MITM attacks. Stops em dead in the tracks.
Detect the compromise before transmission of the data.
This is for communication, not computation or even cryptography. The point in transferring it this way is so as to maintain the unseen property of the photon.
Nothing personal, kid.
Lag-free communication.
No.
Slag free communication?
Slug-free communication. Finally!
deleted by creator
We have proven that’s impossible. Speed limit c Einstein enforced.
Depends on how much time you got innit
Why impossible? Genuinely curious
To simplify - c is the maximum speed at which a “cause” can be transferred.
If I send a radio signal to turn on a light, and the light will only turn on in response to that signal, the signal cannot travel faster than c otherwise it would not have been able to turn on the light.
Physics. But their is scientific consensus that you can’t transfer information faster than light. Our maths for both quantum physics and Einsteinian physics have both proven its impossible. Ohh and it fundamentally breaks causation. Grandfather paradox type shit.
