Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1110.1170

Reply to Comment on "Deterministic six states protocol for quantum communication" [arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] / Phys. Lett. A 374 (2010) 1097]

Jesni Shamsul Shaari, Marco Lucamarini, Asmaʼ Ahmad Bahari

Published Oct 6, 2011• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We reply to the Comment made in arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] (Phys. Lett. A \textbf{374} (2010) 1097) by noting some erroneous considerations therein resulting in a misleading view of the quantum key distribution protocol in question. We then correct the rates provided for the Intercept-and-Resend attack and we complete the analysis of Eve's attack based on a double CNOT gate.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1110.1170

Related papers

Reply to Comment on

Jesni Shamsul Shaari, Marco Lucamarini, Asmaʼ Ahmad Bahari

We reply to the Comment made in arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] (Phys. Lett. A \textbf{374} (2010) 1097) by noting some erroneous considerations therein resulting in a misleading view of the quantum key distribution protocol in question. We then correct the rates provided for the Intercept-and-Resend attack and we complete the analysis of Eve's attack based on a double CNOT gate.

•Oct 6, 2011•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum key distribution without alternative measurements’ ” [Phys. Rev. A63, 036301 (2001)]

Adán Cabello

Recently, Zhang, Li, and Guo have proposed a particular eavesdropping attack [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 036301 (2001), quant-ph/0009042] which shows that my quantum key distribution protocol based on entanglement swapping [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 61}, 052312 (2000), quant-ph/9911025] is insecure. However, security against this attack can be attained with a simple modification. In addition, a simpler version of the protocol using four qubits is introduced.

arXiv:quant-ph/0009051•Physical Review A•Feb 13, 2001•32 citations

Reply to Comment: Quantum Cryptography Based on Orthogonal States?

Lior Goldenberg, Lev Vaidman A

This is our Reply to Peres' Comment [quant-ph/9509003] to "Quantum Cryptography Based on Orthogonal States" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1239 (1995)].

arXiv:quant-ph/9604029•Apr 25, 1996•3 citations

Yes They Can! Comment on "Can Two-Way Direct Communication Protocols Be Considered Secure?"

Jesni Shamsul Shaari, Stefano Mancini, Stefano Pirandola +1 more

An author (arXiv:1709.09262 [quant-ph] (2017), Nanoscale Research Letters (2017) 12:552) has recently questioned the security of two-way quantum key distribution schemes by referring to attack strategies which leave no errors in the (raw) key shared by the legitimate parties. We argue that the article is based on a flawed understanding of the actual workings of a two-way protocol, thus the erroneous conclusions drawn thereof.

arXiv:1805.01651•May 4, 2018•1 citation

Comment on “Deterministic six states protocol for quantum communication” [Phys. Lett. A 358 (2006) 85]

Faisal A. A. El-Orany

arXiv:1107.4435•Physics Letters A•Dec 25, 2009•4 citations

Comment on “Resilience of gated avalanche photodiodes against bright illumination attacks in quantum cryptography” [Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 231104 (2011)]

Lars Lydersen, Vadim Makarov, Johannes Skaar

This is a comment on the publication by Yuan et al. [Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 231104 (2011); arXiv:1106.2675v1 [quant-ph]].

arXiv:1106.3756•Applied Physics Letters•Nov 7, 2011•37 citations
We reply to the Comment made in arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] (Phys. Lett. A \textbf{374} (2010) 1097) by noting some erroneous considerations therein resulting in a misleading view of the quantum key distribution protocol in question. We then correct the rates provided for the Intercept-and-Resend attack and we complete the analysis of Eve's attack based on a double CNOT gate.