@axon
I know that article. It's not actually really legit stuff to be perfectly honest. The issue is that currently the
commercial (in the article you can see: "Quantum hackers have performed the first 'invisible' attack on
two commercial quantum cryptographic systems) quantum computers and systems are pretty broken and incipient (I hope I'm using this right). Numerous physicists are claiming that although the efforts are useful for furthering the designs for systems, the fact that these companies claim they have literal quantum encryption systems is very misleading. They have experimental hardware.
And you can tell, because the quantum entanglement measurements are not done "for real". They say: "The cunning part is that while blinded, Bob's detector cannot function as a 'quantum detector' that distinguishes between different quantum states of incoming light. However, it does still work as a 'classical detector' — recording a bit value of 1 if it is hit by an additional bright light pulse, regardless of the quantum properties of that pulse. " The problem is that, as far as I understand how these systems work, this is not the method of operation of a standard quantum entanglement "sensor". If you would blind it with a laser, the sensor would behave erratically and not like a standard system. Also I think there is a particular way in which we can measure whether or not entanglement has been broken in the detector or not. This means that I could potentially see if I'm being tricked by checking whether or not I'm the one breaking the entanglement. If yes, I'm safe; if no, I'm being MitM'ed. I'm not quantum physicist though, so I can't be sure that this is 100% correct. I'm currently reading actually on this particular subject this thesis:
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/qubit/carolina/content/Carolina_Thesis.pdf@namespace7
At the end, you will still need a connection. At the end there will still be software that manages the connection. There will be software listening to the connection and communicating over it. There will be a stupid user setting it up and configuring it.
Well yeah you can assume that. But then again if the connection is via quantum entanglement, then you need to somehow break that. Actually that's kinda the point; although of course you can infect the actual software on an end-point and get data out that way.
@Darkvision
I dunno what to say about that. Maybe the actual design will have flaws and such, but in regards to quantum knowledge, the missing points that refer to a computer are related to entanglement. Other unknowns don't affect a quantum computer cause they are about gravity, unified theory etc etc. I mean to say that we know the theory behind a quantum computer almost completely, except for the understanding of how entanglement
actually works (the processes and phenomena behind it).
Now of course this can be called speculation given that there's no experimental evidence to back it up, but then again the mathematical and physics elements necessary to build a working quantum computer have been proven theoretically and have been tested via experiments (
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature11472.html). It is true that these experiments were independent from each other, and we need to merge them, but a lot of smart people have been working on this, and the consensus currently is that it's doable in a secure way.
Check this out:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-reveals-quantum-internet-operated-continuously-for-over-two-years/
But yes indeed. Maybe claiming information-technically secure for a quantum computer is not really correct. I do believe though that the security as compared to our current situation will be exponentially improved, at least.
L.E. :
and feel it needs to be said: where are the rest of the promised daily facts damn it! i wants more.)
Thesis and shit bro. Can barely manage to keep myself alive <.< I'll put more stuff when it lightens down in a few days.
