Researchers demo "unbreakable encryption" based on quantum cryptography

Call us devilish, but we just can't help but love these types of stories. Here we have yet another overly confident group of researchers grossly underestimating the collective power of the hacking underground, as gurus from all across Europe have joined together to announce "the first commercial communication network using unbreakable encryption based on quantum cryptography." Interestingly enough, quantum cryptography has already been cracked in a kinda-sorta way, but that's not stopping these folks from pushing this claim hard to government agencies, financial institutions and companies with distributed subsidiaries. We've no doubt this stuff is pretty secure, but the last time we heard someone utter a claim similar to this, we saw him uncomfortably chowing down on those very words merely months later.

[Via Physorg]

[LC @ Oct 9th 2008 6:45PM]

*Tomorrow*

"Hackers crack "unbreakable encryption" based on quantum cryptography"

[Techie @ Oct 9th 2008 7:05PM]

Nothing's perfect... when will they realize this? Well.... Jessica Alba was until she got bang up.

[Jarhead2012 @ Oct 9th 2008 7:21PM]

I see what you did there!

hmm...Digital Fortress, anyone?

[Decoy @ Oct 9th 2008 7:50PM]

Filed alongside "Unsinkable Ship" and "Inalienable Rights"

[mick @ Oct 9th 2008 8:16PM]

you mean "yesterday hackers crack..." http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn14866-laser-cracks-unbreakable-quantum-communications.html

[switchbitch @ Oct 9th 2008 9:00PM]

They say unbreakable because this encryption relies on quantum superposition and not on mathematical functions. Anyone well versed in 'classical' encryption breaking would have to learn an entirely new kind of physics-based hacking skills, only to find that it is indeed impossible to decrypt a quantum key.

Anyone who says quantum cryptography can be 'hacked tomorrow' doesn't understand physics, regardless of how well they understand computing.

[Mam00th @ Oct 9th 2008 9:16PM]

Actually, you don't "decrypt" quantum keys... You send keys with quantum cryptography in a way that you can be sure at any degree you want (except 100%) that someone is spying on you.

Combined with a good implementation of the one time pad algorithm (which is uber simple actually) you could have the perfect form of cryptography. (Granted that quantum physic is right)

[HyperHacker @ Oct 9th 2008 10:36PM]

The Dreamcast was "unhackable".

[Alex @ Oct 9th 2008 11:12PM]

@ switchbitch: That's not true. Data is still in bit form, and the best possible encryption key a price of data can have is of equal length.

In other words, a key the size of the file is just as secure (or insecure) as this 'quantum' key (assuming both keys are random). Even if this method relies on physics, a key based on bits still needs to be created in order to encrypt the data, which means one can find it, and steal it.

There is no such thing as an 'unbreakable' encryption. It is possible to make it 'almost impossible', which like I mentioned, would require a key the size of the data being encrypted.

[Asha @ Oct 10th 2008 12:45AM]

Pretty much. Assuming that anything isn't unbreakable is the first step in the wrong direction. If they are truly smart, once they get done with this, they need to get immediately onto the next generation of encryption so that they can have it up and running before this gets beaten well enough that it is only valuable for consumer markets.

[r3loaded @ Oct 10th 2008 6:34AM]

I'd give them a pass on the usage of "unbreakable" here tbh. The first step to even attempting to break such encryption is to understand the whole concept of quantum mechanics - which many people find hard to accept since it doesn't match their real-life experiences. An example is Schrodinger's cat, people have trouble believing the cat is dead and alive at the same time.

Then there's the small fact of having to bypass all these laws of quantum mechanics. At best, cracking it will be very tough.

[switchbitch @ Oct 10th 2008 7:18AM]

@Alex

That's the reason this is unbreakable, you can't 'find the key and steal it'. Finding the key renders the key useless. Like taking a bite out an apple to see what it tastes like, the wholeness of the apple is gone.

In simple terms, a hacker finding even one bit of the key would change the quantum state of that key, and the associated information is rendered useless.

[SKI @ Oct 10th 2008 1:44PM]

It's not "unbreakable encryption," it's just that it's theoretically impossible for a hacker to intercept it, or copy it, or even read it without leaving a trace.

[Alex @ Oct 14th 2008 9:59PM]

@switchback: I don't have to take a bite out of any apple to know what it tastes like.

I can simply log all the operations being executed by the CPU, which will not affect anything nor leave any trace. Or I can tap into the program that is doing the encrypting and have it log the details for me. Either way, if the computer can read the key, the computer can tell me.

The only way around this would be to build a completely new computer design with a completely different architecture, and even then, I doubt it would be impossible.

[rippinhonda @ Oct 9th 2008 6:47PM]

jawesome

[Ignatius @ Oct 9th 2008 9:31PM]

Is that a hybrid of Japanese and awesome or something?

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Oct 9th 2008 6:49PM]

Why do they always say unbreakable. Couple of months this will have been broken. Retards

[iEye @ Oct 9th 2008 6:51PM]

Why do we need this? RFID Cards are unhackable!... No way no how...

[Hellaphunt @ Oct 9th 2008 6:55PM]

iLove it!

[DirtyVegas @ Oct 9th 2008 6:56PM]

Comparing hacking of BD+ encryption and quantum cryptography is a bit like apples and oranges. To crack the latter you'll need govt. funding or a team of egg-heads at MIT or some such. In any case, when was "kinda-sort-cracked" == cracked?

Obviously, no form of encryption is completely crack-proof. The real parameter is the time and effort it takes to crack it. Unless the cracking involves dropping Tom Cruise into a room filled with lasers. Now that, would be cool.

[Mikeweezer @ Oct 9th 2008 7:03PM]

Team of MIT egg-heads???
Things are usually cracked by some 13-year-old.

[Bloobie @ Oct 9th 2008 7:06PM]

You're right about it only taking time and effort, but that only applies to mathematical encryption. It does not apply to breaking the laws of physics, which is what would be required to break quantum encryption. This is why teleportation of matter, such as on Star Trek, is impossible without a fictional "Heisenberg compensator" to make it work. :)

[DirtyVegas @ Oct 9th 2008 7:11PM]

@ Bloobie

I'm not talking about the physics-related security of these algorithms, but of the security of the hardware that implement these. If the implementation is secure enough I have no doubts that this form of encryption is the safest kinds we'll have for a long time.

[Mam00th @ Oct 9th 2008 7:33PM]

"Obviously, no form of encryption is completely crack-proof. The real parameter is the time and effort it takes to crack it"

That is false. Go read about one-time stamp and come see me after you decoded my message : KMCPDNGEQPS

If you don't have the key, no matter how much time you have, you'll never be able to decode this. The only thing you could do is to steal my key, which I destroyed.

[DirtyVegas @ Oct 9th 2008 8:13PM]

"If you don't have the key, no matter how much time you have, you'll never be able to decode this. The only thing you could do is to steal my key, which I destroyed."

One time pad? Which means the encrypted message is useless since your recipient can't do anything with your cipher. I couldn't care less what you were saying.

Why's it that no one understands the "real world" where algorithm + implementation + practicality are always together, making generalizations of both kind -> completely breakable, completely unbreakable are both incorrect? Encryption methods always have an "as long as.." clause.

[John @ Oct 9th 2008 8:27PM]

One time pads are not encryption algorithms, but don't worry, you ARE an asshole

[Mam00th @ Oct 9th 2008 8:36PM]

Well, the one time pad is actually still used in many places beleive it or not and I have really no idea where you got your : "Which means the encrypted message is useless since your recipient can't do anything with your cipher"

The KGB used it a lot actually! The only problem with one-time pad is that it's really hard to manage securely all the keys for all you messages, people usually carry the keys in a secure briefcase...

And just so you know, I was only refering to what you said that no system were unbreakable. No matter how much computing power you had at the moment, you would still be unable to decipher a message the KGB sent during the cold war.

Encryption always have an "as long as" clause like you said. There is always the as long as you don't have the key nor don't know the algorithm clause, because if not, nobody could decipher your message...

[Mam00th @ Oct 9th 2008 8:41PM]

Sorry I suck at grammar...

As for john, one time pad is a form of encryption, and according to wikipedia, an encryption algorithm...

[Mam00th @ Oct 9th 2008 8:51PM]

You know what's not an encription algorithm, quantum cryptography!

Quantum cryptography is just a way to detect wether someone is spying your communications or not. You don't actually cipher or decipher anything with quantum cryptography. You just send the keys to someone else so that you can communicate securly through you favorite symetrical algorithm like AES on the internet.

[Mam00th @ Oct 9th 2008 9:01PM]

From the article : "The system is designed to eventually work in applications where a consumer can regularly ‘top up’ a store of secrets for use in a variety of one-time-pad (OTP) and authentication protocols."

I think I should stop spamming your inbox

[DirtyVegas @ Oct 9th 2008 10:34PM]

@ John

k...

@ Mam00th

I didn't mean to sound offensive, but the point I was trying to make was that if you "throw the key away", how useful will the encrypted message be?

Algorithm + implementation + practicality -> get them right, you'll have 100% security...

I understand that quantum cryptography is being applied to ensure detection of intrusion, but if this method fails, I'd say it's because the implementation was compromised, not because the physics behind it was broken. And English not being my first language, I've used encryption/cryptography/cipher interchangeably. Oh well.

[maveric101 @ Oct 10th 2008 3:43AM]

@ bloobie

think of how far we've come in 100 years. you can't imagine what life will be like in another 100. trust me, someday we will figure out teleportation.

[Holyelephant @ Oct 9th 2008 6:57PM]

From the academic talks I have been to on the subject, I believe that there are theoretical quantum computing encryption schemes that are provably unbreakable. Provably. As in, you can be skeptic all you want, but there is no way to break it. I am not sure what this group has done, but as I understand it, it is this is theoretically possible.

[DirtyVegas @ Oct 9th 2008 7:08PM]

I remember reading some proof to that effect too. But just a thought, isn't the security of such a system also in it's implementation? What if there's some miniscule error in implementation that can be taken apart merely due to the physical limitations of the hardware? Apples to oranges again, but just as how you can use a power analysis attack to figure out firing patterns of transistors running 128 bit key encryption, perhaps there's some quantum scale attack of the implementation? Although in the true sense of the word I suspect quantum encryption will be a safe bet for the near future.

[Benson @ Oct 9th 2008 7:08PM]

Nope. Because nothing's provably anything, without axioms. And those axioms might not be valid. Essentially, the previous "kinda-sort-crack" involved a physics loophole they'd missed; I'm not sure if current work is based on low-level enough axioms to prove that sort of missed approach isn't left in, but I'll assume it is.

It's still only as good as the physics we have now. Isn't it just a little egotistical to suppose we have physics actually _right_ now, rather than another asymptotically good approximation that matches for all experiments performed so far, but will fail in some circumstances not tested yet?

[Mam00th @ Oct 9th 2008 9:29PM]

Actually I've been on the subject too, and done correctly, this is unbreakable, granted that quantum physic is right.

[Holyelephant @ Oct 10th 2008 4:50AM]

Ok, so we assume certain axioms when we discuss "provability" of anything. But the thousands of quantum physicists and mathematicians currently working on quantum computing, and the hundreds of thousands of physicists around since the development of quantum theory have agreed upon the current axioms because they work in every situation thus far. In short, good luck you 13 year old dweeb hackers. You won't crack this one in between jerk sessions at fartnation.com.

[thethirdmoose @ Oct 9th 2008 6:58PM]

The technology is unbreakable by the laws of physics. The people who hacked it hacked a faulty implementation.

[DirtyVegas @ Oct 9th 2008 7:16PM]

Right on. I hate generalizations of the "hacker underground".

[linuxamp @ Oct 10th 2008 12:33AM]

Since it will always be implemented by humans (skynet, aliens, and GM monkeys aside) then that means there will always be a possible weakness.

[aatnet @ Oct 10th 2008 3:24AM]

I totally agree with linuxamp. There is a HUGE difference between having a theoretically unbreakable method (and indeed IT IS) and a practically unbreakable one. Find me a flawless hardware and i might change my mind

[eiki @ Oct 9th 2008 7:00PM]

completely off topic but has anyone thought of adding two analogue sticks and making the default avatar into a pXBOX360 ?? w white or black paint job

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 9th 2008 7:56PM]

What the fuck?

[Dave Chappelle @ Oct 10th 2008 4:05AM]

ohhh, lol i get what your saying.
However, xbox is dead man.. Engadget probably does not want to associate itself with that shitty, unreliable and overpriced device.
and wtf is a 'pxbox' ? do u pee in it?

every1 is bashing this, little do the 'digital download, i h8 sony and blu ray fanboys' know that this is what they would need to get digital downloads, as it would disallow piracy... (if you like get an official "quantum cryptography media player")

but their idiots! and Digital downloads SUCKORZ!

[Dave @ Oct 9th 2008 7:04PM]

Done: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39599/108/

[iEye @ Oct 9th 2008 7:29PM]

^^^ Zombie!, oh wait...

[iEye @ Oct 9th 2008 7:07PM]

Oh well, I guess the future has DRM PMP's, That is why if you choose an MP3 player (or Phone) , it should be backed by Store that will support its customers, like iTunes, as opposed to PlayForSure or Bonfire...

[PeterF @ Oct 9th 2008 7:32PM]

Seriously, are you PAID to advertise for Apple or do you have nothing better to do?

[DWells55 @ Oct 9th 2008 8:24PM]

He's a troll; he hates Apple. He just does this to get people riled up and promote anti-Apple attitudes. Just ignore him and don't play into his stupid game.

[Loonie @ Oct 9th 2008 7:14PM]

'We call it... "Titanic encryption"! It's uncrackable!'