The microblog: 2018.03.27 14:46:21

2018.03.27 14:46:21 (978614200946905088) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (977924307144855552):

Let me get this straight. You're agreeing that the quote I gave (from a 1995 QKD paper, no erratum ever issued) is falsely claiming QKD unbreakability, but you're claiming that for decades now the QKD community _hasn't_ been claiming QKD unbreakability?


2018.03.23 18:18:05 (977233031667830786) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

QKD proponents claim that the security of QKD is guaranteed by the laws of physics. What we see throughout this Twitter thread is proponents switching to weaker claims (yes, there's leakage, but _hopefully_ hard to invert) without admitting that the original claim is bullshit.

2018.03.23 21:14:11 (977277348482633741) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":

The QKD communitity do NOT claim that QKD is unbreakable, and hacking attacks are well discussed in the community since 2003, if not 1993. And don’t tell me noone ever claimed classical cryptography is “guaranteed by the law of mathematics”

2018.03.25 01:52:23 (977709747108532225) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (977277348482633741):

When people write papers claiming, e.g., that QKD "offers the ultimate security of the inviolability of a law of Nature for key distribution", are you saying that this isn't a claim that QKD is unbreakable? Or are you saying that these people aren't part of the QKD community?

2018.03.25 17:04:58 (977924307144855552) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":

I am unequivocally claiming that this claim is wrong, and contradicts what has been the consensus for decades (see e.g. the last sentence of §VI.K of this 2002 review by Gidin et al. )