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:1205.6672 · Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Security proof for cryptographic protocols based only on the monogamy of Bell's inequality violations'”

Marcin Pawłowski

Published Apr 17, 2012• 6 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this reply, I address the comment by Hwang and Gittsovich on my paper [Phys. Rev. A 82, 032313 (2010)]. The authors of the Comment pointed out that I used an implicit assumption that the alphabet of the eavesdropper was binary. They claimed that such an assumption was unrealistic. Here, I show that, even without this assumption, the main result of my paper still holds.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.85.046302

Related papers

Comment on “Security proof for cryptographic protocols based only on the monogamy of Bell's inequality violations”

Won-Young Hwang, Oleg Gittsovich

Recently, Pawlowski [Phys. Rev. A 82, 032313 (2010)] claimed to have proven the security of a quantum key distribution by using only the monogamy of Bell's inequality violations. In the proof, however, he tacitly assumed that the eavesdropper's outcome is binary. The assumption cannot be justified because Eve's (eavesdropper's) power can only be limited by natural principle. We provide a counterexample for a step of the proof.

arXiv:1204.4235•Physical Review A•Apr 17, 2012•5 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Device-independent entanglement-based Bennett 1992 protocol’ ”

Giuseppe Vallone, Giovanni Di Giuseppe, Paolo Mataloni +2 more

Our paper [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)], setting forth a previously unknown connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality, has recently received a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066303 (2016)] about a possible flaw in its potential device-independent (DI) implementation. We point the authors of the Comment to prior works showing that what they assume to be specific to our protocol's DI implementation is actually a standard assumption in DI quantum key distribution. Therefore there is no need to revise any of the conclusions drawn in Lucamarini et al. [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)].

Physical Review A•Jun 27, 2016•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum key distribution for d -level systems with generalized Bell states’ ”

Vahid Karimipour

In the preceding Comment it has been claimed that an entangled-based quantum key distribution protocol proposed by Zhang, Li, and Gao [Phys. Rev. A 64, 024302 (2001)] and its generalization to $d$-level systems by Karimipour, Bahraminasab, and Bagherinezhad [Phys. Rev. A 65, 052331 (2002)] are insecure against an attack devised by the authors of the Comment. We invalidate the arguments of the Comment and show that the protocols are still secure.

arXiv:quant-ph/0509189•Physical Review A•Dec 20, 2005•2 citations

Security proof for cryptographic protocols based only on the monogamy of Bell’s inequality violations

Marcin Pawłowski

We show that monogamy of Bell's inequality violations, which is strictly weaker condition than the no-signaling principle is enough to prove security of quantum key distribution. We derive our results for a whole class of monogamy constraints and generalize our results to any theory that communicating parties may have access to. Some of these theories do not respect the no-signaling principle yet still allow for secure communication. This proves that no signaling is only a sufficient condition for the possibility of secure communication, but not the necessary one. We also present some new qualitative results concerning the security of existing quantum key distribution protocols.

arXiv:0907.3778•Physical Review A•Sep 14, 2010•145 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum string seal is insecure’ ”

H. F. Chau

In Phys. Rev. A 76, 056301 (2007), He claimed that the proof in my earlier paper [Phys. Rev. A 75, 012327 (2007)] is insufficient to conclude the insecurity of all quantum string seals because my measurement strategy cannot obtain nontrivial information on the sealed string and escape detection at the same time. Here, I clarify that our disagreement comes from our adoption of two different criteria on the minimum amount of information a quantum string seal can reveal to members of the public. I also point out that He did not follow my measurement strategy correctly.

arXiv:0711.2768•Physical Review A•Nov 16, 2007•4 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum dense key distribution’ ”

Ivo Pietro Degiovanni, Ivano Ruo Berchera, Stefania Castelletto +4 more

In this Reply we propose a modified security proof of the quantum dense key distribution protocol, detecting also the eavesdropping attack proposed by W\'ojcik in his Comment [W\'ojcik, Phys. Rev. A 71, 016301 (2005)].

arXiv:quant-ph/0410221•Physical Review A•Jan 28, 2005•12 citations
In this reply, I address the comment by Hwang and Gittsovich on my paper [Phys. Rev. A 82, 032313 (2010)]. The authors of the Comment pointed out that I used an implicit assumption that the alphabet of the eavesdropper was binary. They claimed that such an assumption was unrealistic. Here, I show that, even without this assumption, the main result of my paper still holds.
Our paper [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)], setting forth a previously unknown connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality, has recently received a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066303 (2016)] about a possible flaw in its potential device-independent (DI) implementation. We point the authors of the Comment to prior works showing that what they assume to be specific to our protocol's DI implementation is actually a standard assumption in DI quantum key distribution. Therefore there is no need to revise any of the conclusions drawn in Lucamarini et al. [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)].
In the preceding Comment it has been claimed that an entangled-based quantum key distribution protocol proposed by Zhang, Li, and Gao [Phys. Rev. A 64, 024302 (2001)] and its generalization to ddd-level systems by Karimipour, Bahraminasab, and Bagherinezhad [Phys. Rev. A 65, 052331 (2002)] are insecure against an attack devised by the authors of the Comment. We invalidate the arguments of the Comment and show that the protocols are still secure.
We show that monogamy of Bell's inequality violations, which is strictly weaker condition than the no-signaling principle is enough to prove security of quantum key distribution. We derive our results for a whole class of monogamy constraints and generalize our results to any theory that communicating parties may have access to. Some of these theories do not respect the no-signaling principle yet still allow for secure communication. This proves that no signaling is only a sufficient condition for the possibility of secure communication, but not the necessary one. We also present some new qualitative results concerning the security of existing quantum key distribution protocols.
In Phys. Rev. A 76, 056301 (2007), He claimed that the proof in my earlier paper [Phys. Rev. A 75, 012327 (2007)] is insufficient to conclude the insecurity of all quantum string seals because my measurement strategy cannot obtain nontrivial information on the sealed string and escape detection at the same time. Here, I clarify that our disagreement comes from our adoption of two different criteria on the minimum amount of information a quantum string seal can reveal to members of the public. I also point out that He did not follow my measurement strategy correctly.