Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

A Quantum Encryption Breakthrough

This new technique dupes eavesdroppers.

By Kate Greene

Friday, March 03, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Researchers at the University of Toronto have shown, in a study published in the February 24 issue of Physical Review Letters, that one of the present liabilities of quantum cryptography can be turned into an advantage. Using "quantum decoys," Professor Hoi-Kwong Lo and his team are increasing the distance that quantum-encrypted data can be sent over fiber-optic cable.

Quantum cryptography uses particles of light called photons to create and send keys used for coding and decoding messages. A photon can transmit bits of a key by representing a 1 or 0, depending on a property called polarization. The sender of this key (physicists call her "Alice") transmits a string of randomly polarized single photons to the recipient ("Bob"), who collects each photon, one at a time.

The reason this technique is so secure is that photons possess a safeguard inherent in quantum mechanics. For an eavesdropper to listen in, he or she must tap the fiber-optic line and measure the polarization of the photons with a detector as the photons arrive. But quantum mechanics dictates that any measurement, such as the one taken by the eavesdropper, unavoidably modifies the polarization. This means that Bob would notice if a transmission had been intercepted -- as soon as he and Alice compared notes (over a channel that doesn't need to be secure) about the polarization of photons sent and received. Any inconsistency in the sent and received photons would alert them to the fact that the key had been stolen.

A problem arises, however, when more than a single photon is inadvertently sent at a time -– a common occurrence since no perfect single photon emitter exists. This happens, says Jonathan Habif, quantum information research scientist at BBN Technologies, because scientists send pulses of laser light through a series of filters until only one photon squeezes through; but the filtering process isn't perfect, and sometimes more than one photon per pulse gets through.

When two photons of the same polarization are sent, one of them can be picked off by the eavesdropper, while the other one will go through unchanged, as if nothing is amiss. Additionally, Habif says, in order to send a quantum-encrypted key farther, the initial light from the laser must be more intense, which means there must be more photons to begin with, thus increasing the likelihood that more than one photon will squeak through the filters.

Comments

  • I don't get it
    Now let me see.  If I use sets of polarized quantum photons of nearly, if not identical frequency assigned with known sets acting as decoys and if any of  the non-decoy sets (the real McCoy) are not polarizedly correct then I know of foul play.  Now I think I know how it works.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Silicon Valley Sender)
    03/03/2006
    Posts:1
    • Got it!
      It doesn't work.  What I got was gramatically incorrect, so the message doesn't mean diddly?  I mean hey, McCoys, decoys, light strings, quantum light that gets bent out of shape by criminals, no less.  Yep, sounds like the Government.  Not Alice but AliCIA.  BTW, what's a Texa?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Silicon Valley receiver)
      03/03/2006
      Posts:1
      • Brew That Is True?
        Reciever: The Chalace from the palace holds the brew that is true?

        Sender: No! They broke the chalace from the palace. The pellet with the poison is in the vesel with the pestle. The flagon with the dragon holds the brew that is true. Get it?

        Reciever: Got it.

        Sender: Good.

        Users: Thank goodness for quantum encription.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Colin)
        03/04/2006
        Posts:1
        • In the light
          If you hold the light juuusst right...

          It looks like a purple pimpernel.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Giacomo)
          03/15/2006
          Posts:1
    • Get it?
      Shouldn't it be identically frequent rather than identical frequency?  Am I being coherent? or am I coherent?  Guess it depends if infinitive or here and now.  Is it sometimes right being wrong?  Before enLIGHTenment carrying water and chopping wood.  After enLIGHTenment chopping wood and carrying water (or vice versa?).  Is it contiguity or ambiguity, the real decoy or just a bunch of McCoys. 
      Well, where are you Hatfields?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Silicon Valley Interceptor)
      03/03/2006
      Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Brain Imaging and IQ
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.