The microblog: 2018.03.31 20:46:37

2018.03.31 20:46:37 (980154414727073794) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (979644612943011840):

So you're agreeing that the 2016 claim of QKD security being "guaranteed by the fundamental laws of physics" is wrong, but you're saying that the 2015 claim of QKD security being "guaranteed by the laws of physics" means something different and correct?

2018.03.31 20:52:42 (980155943844503552) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

And your non-literal reading of the text has nothing to do with (undefined) distinctions (having no obvious relevance) between "laws of physics" and "fundamental laws of physics", but instead relies on admissions that the authors have made elsewhere?


2018.03.30 10:44:56 (979640606929670145) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)", replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (979638874455584768):

(Shor @preskill 2000 ) The last § of this papers stresses that it is on an ideal model and more work is needed for realist sources. The model indeed relies on the properties of quantum mechanics 2/5

2018.03.30 10:51:40 (979642303986962434) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)", replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (979640606929670145):

(Christiandl et al 2004 The attack model is clear in this paper, which was a great improvement in the definition of security criteria. However, indeed think that the claim of “perfect security” can be misleading out of context 3/5

2018.03.30 10:55:34 (979643285017907200) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)", replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (979642303986962434):

(Fernick et al. 2015, @ETSI_STANDARDS doc ) Hacking attack are indeed part of this document (§, which does not claim perfect security

2018.03.30 11:00:51 (979644612943011840) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)", replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (979643285017907200):

(@IDQuantique 2016 The claim of “absolute security” this marketing document very problematic, because 1) it is addressed to non-specialists 2) they’re well aware of the quantum hacking problem, and is involved in many hacking work (eg ref [14]) 5/5