Position-Based Quantum Cryptography Proved Secure 45
KentuckyFC writes "Physicists have developed a new kind of quantum cryptography that uses position measurements to guarantee the security of a message. The technique is based on triangulation. Alice uses several transmitters to send messages to Bob who returns them immediately at the speed of light. If the return arrives within a certain time period, Alice can be certain that Bob is where he says he is. Physicists proved a few years ago that when the messages are purely classical this method is not secure because Eve can use any number of receivers to work out where Bob is and then use this information to trick Alice. However, the same physicists have now proved that the quantum version of the same position-based scheme is perfectly secure, essentially because Eve cannot easily measure the value of any qubits in the message. Alice and Bob go on to use the qubits to exchange a cryptographic key, a one-time pad, that they use to encrypt a message. The beauty of the technique is that a message encrypted in this way can be read only by somebody at a specific location, something that governments, banks, and the military, not to mention everybody else, may find useful."
general relativity destroys the security (Score:5, Interesting)
this only works in a perfectly flat space-time, if unknown or changing (known or caused by hostile party) curvatures are present the whole thing falls apart
Re:nonlocal results and human weak links (Score:4, Interesting)
If you look at WWII and the Cold War, cryptography was tremendously important.
It was even more important in WWI. The Germans had submarine warfare, and there was no sonar, making subs pretty much invincible. Germany also had a strong surface fleet. They succeeded in driving the Allied fleet out of the North Sea. They could have owned the entire ocean, cut off all trade and resupply of the Allies, taken Europe and then Britain, and then by degrees the rest of the world.*
But the British had captured a German codebook and were using it to track subs and ships, made easier by the German practice of daily radio communications (admiralties being groups of control freaks with politically motivated bosses, they tended to be clingy that way.) They still considered the North Sea dangerous, but were able to maintain a blockade by patrolling the Channel and the North Atlantic.
* - It's likely they wouldn't have had to "take" the U.S.; we at the time were isolationist and neutral, and in fact had welcomed a German submarine as heroes when she ran under the British blockade to get supplies from us. They used their biggest sub and gutted it for the trip, but the effectiveness was minimal so they never tried it again. The point is, if the British hadn't had control of the ocean, the Germans could have been trading with the world's prime source of natural resources all along while they were knocking down one nation after another, and America would have fed Germany right up until the moment Germany turned on America. Instead, the Germans got desperate, started attacking civilian vessels, sunk the Lusitania, disgusted us all, and put America on the side of the Allies, though it would be some time before we did more than supply them.
No, *not* proved secure. (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA:
So how did the summary conclude "proved secure" from that?