Dev.SN

Making Quantum Digital Signatures Usable

posted by Cactus on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:00AM   
from the Making-the-NSA-cry dept.

aliks writes:

"The practical applications of quantum encryption may be getting closer. A paper published in Physical Review Letters by Vedran Dunjko, Petros Wallden, and Erika Andersson presents a way to use Quantum Digital Signatures without requiring long term quantum memory.

Phys.org provides a summary:
Quantum digital signatures (QDSs) allow the sending of messages from one sender to multiple recipients, with the guarantee that messages cannot be forged or tampered with. Additionally, messages cannot be repudiated; if one recipient accepts a message, she is guaranteed that others will accept the same message as well. While messaging with these types of security guarantees are routinely performed in the modern digital world, current technologies only offer security under computational assumptions. QDSs, on the other hand, offer security guaranteed by quantum mechanics. All of the variants of QDSs proposed thus far require long-term, high quality quantum memory, making them unfeasible in the foreseeable future. Here, we present a QDS scheme where no quantum memory is required, which also needs just linear optics. This makes QDSs feasible with current technology."

[Ed. Note] The Physical Review Letters link has all the fun details, but Phys.org provides a more understandable article for the layperson.

• Editors Editors (Score: 5, Insightful) by Techwolf on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:03AM

  by Techwolf (87) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:03AM (#1633)

  I could not help but notice just how much better the editing on these articials compare to /.
  Keep up the good job. :-)

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+4
  Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		5

• Re:Editors (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:45AM

  by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:45AM (#1659)

  ... and you know you've come to the right place when a "more understandable article for the layperson" comes from Phys.org.

  Parent

• Re:Editors Re:Editors (Score: 5, Informative) by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:46PM

  by mattie_p (13) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:46PM (#1695) Journal

  Thanks, Techwolf. We're implementing a system where two editors need to sign off on an article before it gets published. So while Cactus did the first pass, I caught a few things that he missed. I'm glad I was able to do so, because some of the stories I published without having a second set of eyes on had glaring errors. Those errors were pointed out to me in the comments or on IRC, and I was able to fix them. However, better to minimize the errors in the first place than to have a 100% fix rate. Thanks for reading.

  Also, go Physics! ~mattie_p

  Parent

  • Re:Editors (Score: 1) by aliks on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:58PM

    by aliks (357) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:58PM (#2002)

    Actually this was my first submission ever, so I was extra careful to make it good, nice to see I hit the mark.

    Thx for the edit - I'll remember that point next time.

    --
    Fraid my stuff is just Soylent Red

    Parent

• Re:Editors (Score: 2, Funny) by VLM on Tuesday February 18 2014, @01:14PM

  by VLM (445) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @01:14PM (#1715)

  "articials"

  Also, the calm mints, or if you prefer CamelCase, the CalmMints

  Parent

• Re:Editors (Score: 1) by sar on Tuesday February 18 2014, @01:30PM

  by sar (507) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @01:30PM (#1728)

  I second that. There was some article I saw on "the other site" where I got incorrect understanding from summary and TFA cleared it up.
  SoylentNews summary of same thing really "summed up" important info and made pretty clear what is it all about.

  Question is, who will RTFA now ;)
  Excellent work.

  Parent