Australian Gov't May Employ a Homegrown Quantum Key System

mask.of.sanity writes "The Australian government is trialling a new Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) system built by Aussie scientists. QKD is considered the world's toughest security because the slightest attempt to intercept the one time keys, coded into lasers at the quantum level, will disrupt the beam. The technology differs from current cryptography tech primarily because it's cheap. Well, less than the $US100k price tag of rival systems. It uses off-the-shelf networking gear instead of proprietary technology, and is built on open standards, so it's easier to install. The random key is encoded at the quantum level in the sidebeam in the phase and amplitude, or brightness and colour, of a highly tuned laser beam. The creators, who built the system in part for their Ph.Ds, said it can be used to transport the most sensitive data like critical infrastructure and secret commercial IP. The days of hand-delivered security keys are numbered."

Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scenario

[joeflies]

In general I think that although standard key exchange methods are theoretically less secure than quantum key exchanges, at least the standard key exchange methods are a) well understood, b) tested and c) commercially supported.

Putting highly secret documents in the hands of a technology made by college students working on PHD thesis seems to be a premature use of this technology.

It's not the technology itself, but the implementation of the technology that I'd worry about. And cost doesn't seem to be a good reason to take a gamble.

obligatory movie quote

[SuperBanana]

"That's not encryption. THIS, now THIS is encryption."

Re:Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scena

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Worse than that. The quantum stuff is really cool, and all kinds of useful for making sure a given bit of fiber isn't being eavesdropped on; but it is only link-level security. You have to have a run of fiber directly between hither and yon for communications to be secure. With ordinary crypto, you can use public internet or untrusted network segments controlled by others, or bailing wire or whatever. That is the ultimate limitation.

Wait a minute...

[nog_lorp]

It travels over fiber, and "the slightest attempt to intercept the one time keys, coded into lasers at the quantum level, will disrupt the beam".

How do you route it to its destination? Do you need a dedicated fiber line between the source and destination for this service to work?

Otherwise, why can't someone just, y'know, intercept it completely and then generate the same key again?

Re:Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scena

[erbbysam]

Exactly. Is public key crypto broken enough to need to spend any money to switch over to QKD?
For that matter is public key crypto over the internet broken?

From the QKD guy in the article:
"Conventional cryptography is exposed to threats from advances in computing power that provide for brute force attacks,"
As long as you stay up to speed (ie. keeping your key sizes up to standards), I don't see how this is an issue...

Okay but why?

[MichaelSmith]

I am at a loss to understand why the Australian Government would want this standard of security. This requires a dedicated fibre so it only works over a short range and over a land line. The bulk of security issues would be with international communications (say diplomatic stuff), wireless communications (police, military etc) and office networks (the federal public service).

But quantum won't help you in any of those cases. Oh well. I doubt I will hear if it is ever actually used.

Re:Is quantum cryptography desirable in this scena

[SpazmodeusG]

Exactly. Is public key crypto broken enough to need to spend any money to switch over to QKD? For that matter is public key crypto over the internet broken?

Yes. Think secret plans that can't get out, even in 20 years time.

Can you guarantee quantum computers won't be around in 20 years time?

Bigger fish to fry...

[Manip]

Sorry but you have $100k and you want to increase your security by wasting it on one highly secure pipe?

That is pretty sad. That money could be better allocated to toughen up systems or to employ spot checks on supposedly tough targets.

The truth is that almost no security breaches are conducted by cutting lines and intercepting the traffic (with the exception of satellite communications *cough* NSA *cough*).

Ultimately humans are the weakest part of the system, followed by the destination's security, and then last I'd say the transit between A->B.

Cryptography...

[girlintraining]

Will always be vulnerable to a gun to your head and the question "What does it say?"

Try not to forget the human side of the equation when you're quoting statistics and mathematics.

Re:All I want to know is...

[Slumdog]

...can I encrypt messages with freakin' laser beams attached to the freakin' heads of the freakin' sharks? >

"Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code." -- Dave Olson

Re:Okay but why?

[dbIII]

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you think a government doesn't have a military, police force or diplomats.