News@Nature: A team of researchers has, for the first time, hacked into a network protected by quantum encryption says Nature's Geoff Brumfiel.
Quantum cryptography uses the laws of quantum mechanics to encode data securely and most researchers consider such quantum networks to be nearly 100% uncrackable. But, by using a "quantum-mechanical wiretap," a group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were able to 'listen in'. The trick allowed them to tease out about half of the data, in a way that couldn't be detected by those transmitting or receiving the message.
The group admits that their hack isn't yet capable of eavesdropping on a real network. "It is not something that currently could attack a commercial system," says Jeffrey Shapiro, a physicist at MIT and one of the authors on the study. But they expect that one day it will be able to do so, if quantum encryption isn't adequately adapted to stop such hackers from succeeding.
Quantum cryptography is hacked
Categories:
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Categories
- Acoustics
- Agencies (24)
- Arms Control (90)
- Biophysics (26)
- Education (141)
- Energy (260)
- Environment (410)
- Everyday Physics (238)
- Laboratories (120)
- Medical Physics (10)
- Nanotechnology (59)
- Obituaries (21)
- Opinion (60)
- Planetary and Geophysics (262)
- Policy & Government (462)
- Quantum physics (28)
- Research (265)
- Science and Society (332)
- Space & Astronomy (516)
- Technology (387)
Monthly Archives
- August 2009 (14)
- July 2009 (86)
- June 2009 (91)
- May 2009 (81)
- April 2009 (98)
- March 2009 (97)
- February 2009 (80)
- January 2009 (64)
- December 2008 (68)
- November 2008 (65)
- October 2008 (93)
- September 2008 (98)
- August 2008 (110)
- July 2008 (97)
- June 2008 (117)
- May 2008 (122)
- April 2008 (103)
- March 2008 (106)
- February 2008 (87)
- January 2008 (94)
- December 2007 (82)
- November 2007 (96)
- October 2007 (98)
- September 2007 (93)
- August 2007 (98)
- July 2007 (91)
- June 2007 (83)
- May 2007 (89)
- April 2007 (87)
- March 2007 (88)
- February 2007 (81)
- January 2007 (89)
- December 2006 (80)
- November 2006 (80)
- October 2006 (89)
- September 2006 (80)
- August 2006 (92)
- July 2006 (76)
- June 2006 (91)
- May 2006 (83)
- April 2006 (60)
Pages
OpenID accepted here
Learn more about OpenID
Search
Categories
- Acoustics
- Agencies (24)
- Arms Control (90)
- Biophysics (26)
- Education (141)
- Energy (260)
- Environment (410)
- Everyday Physics (238)
- Laboratories (120)
- Medical Physics (10)
- Nanotechnology (59)
- Obituaries (21)
- Opinion (60)
- Planetary and Geophysics (262)
- Policy & Government (462)
- Quantum physics (28)
- Research (265)
- Science and Society (332)
- Space & Astronomy (516)
- Technology (387)
Monthly Archives
- August 2009 (14)
- July 2009 (86)
- June 2009 (91)
- May 2009 (81)
- April 2009 (98)
- March 2009 (97)
- February 2009 (80)
- January 2009 (64)
- December 2008 (68)
- November 2008 (65)
- October 2008 (93)
- September 2008 (98)
- August 2008 (110)
- July 2008 (97)
- June 2008 (117)
- May 2008 (122)
- April 2008 (103)
- March 2008 (106)
- February 2008 (87)
- January 2008 (94)
- December 2007 (82)
- November 2007 (96)
- October 2007 (98)
- September 2007 (93)
- August 2007 (98)
- July 2007 (91)
- June 2007 (83)
- May 2007 (89)
- April 2007 (87)
- March 2007 (88)
- February 2007 (81)
- January 2007 (89)
- December 2006 (80)
- November 2006 (80)
- October 2006 (89)
- September 2006 (80)
- August 2006 (92)
- July 2006 (76)
- June 2006 (91)
- May 2006 (83)
- April 2006 (60)

I'm confused. _Half_ the data? Doesn't guessing bits at random give you half the data? Or is it the case that the snoopers can tell which half of the data is correct?