
arXiv: 0812.4835
Secure key distribution among two remote parties is impossible when both are classical, unless some unproven (and arguably unrealistic) computation-complexity assumptions are made, such as the difficulty of factorizing large numbers. On the other hand, a secure key distribution is possible when both parties are quantum. What is possible when only one party (Alice) is quantum, yet the other (Bob) has only classical capabilities? Recently, a semi-quantum key distribution protocol was presented (Boyer, Kenigsberg and Mor, Physical Review Letters, 2007), in which one of the parties (Bob) is classical, and yet, the protocol is proven to be completely robust against an eavesdropping attempt. Here we extend that result much further. We present two protocols with this constraint, and prove their robustness against attacks: we prove that any attempt of an adversary to obtain information (and even a tiny amount of information) necessarily induces some errors that the legitimate parties could notice. One protocol presented here is identical to the one referred to above, however, its robustness is proven here in a much more general scenario. The other protocol is very different as it is based on randomization.
13 pages, 2 figures
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Quantum cryptography (quantum-theoretic aspects), Quantum Physics, Computer Science - Cryptography and Security, Quantum computation, Cryptography, FOS: Physical sciences, Quantum Physics (quant-ph), Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Quantum cryptography (quantum-theoretic aspects), Quantum Physics, Computer Science - Cryptography and Security, Quantum computation, Cryptography, FOS: Physical sciences, Quantum Physics (quant-ph), Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 208 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
