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:1209.2423

Reply to recent scepticism about the foundations of quantum cryptography

Renato Renner

Published Sep 11, 2012• 16 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a series of recent papers, Hirota and Yuen claim to have identified a fundamental flaw in the theory underlying quantum cryptography, which would invalidate existing security proofs. In this short note, we sketch their argument and show that their conclusion is unjustified --- it originates from a confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria for secrecy.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1209.2423

Related papers

On the Foundations of Quantum Key Distribution - Reply to Renner and Beyond

Horace P. Yuen

In a recent note (arXiv:1209.2423) Renner claims that the criticisms of Hirota and Yuen on the security foundation of quantum key distribution arose from a logical mistake. In this paper it is shown that Renner misrepresents the claims of Yuen and also Hirota while adopting one main theorem of Yuen in lieu of his own previous error. This leads to his incoherent position which ignores quantitative security criterion levels that undermine the current security claims, a main point of the Yuen and Hirota criticisms. This security criterion issue has never been properly addressed in the literature and is here fully discussed, as are several common misconceptions on QKD security. Other foundational issues are touched upon to bring out further the present precarious state of quantum key distribution security proofs.

arXiv:1210.2804•Oct 10, 2012•11 citations

Quantum cryptography: Security criteria reexamined

Dagomir Kaszlikowski, Ajay Gopinathan, Yeong-Cherng Liang +2 more

We find that the generally accepted security criteria are flawed for a whole class of protocols for quantum cryptography. This is so because a standard assumption of the security analysis, namely that the so-called square-root measurement is optimal for eavesdropping purposes, is not true in general. There are rather large parameter regimes in which the optimal measurement extracts substantially more information than the square-root measurement.

arXiv:quant-ph/0310144•Physical Review A•Sep 8, 2004•12 citations

The debate over QKD: A rebuttal to the NSA's objections

Renato Renner, Ramona Wolf

A recent publication by the NSA assessing the usability of quantum cryptography has generated significant attention, concluding that this technology is not recommended for use. Here, we reply to this criticism and argue that some of the points raised are unjustified, whereas others are problematic now but can be expected to be resolved in the foreseeable future.

arXiv:2307.15116•Jul 27, 2023•4 citations

How well can you know the edge of a quantum pyramid?

Dagomir Kaszlikowski, Ajay Gopinathan, Yeong-Cherng Liang +2 more

The methods of quantum cryptography enable one to have perfectly secure communication lines, whereby the laws of quantum physics protect the privacy of the data exchanged. Each quantum-cryptography scheme has its own security criteria that need to be met in a practical implementation. We find, however, that the generally accepted criteria are flawed for a whole class of such schemes.

arXiv:quant-ph/0307086•Jul 11, 2003•0 citations

Quantum Locality?

Stapp, Henry

Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a ‘consistent quantum theory’ (CQT) that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues, on the basis of his examination of certain arguments that claim to demonstrate the existence of such nonlocal influences, that such influences do not exist. However, his examination was restricted mainly to hidden-variable-based arguments that include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by attributing to the system properties alien to that system. Hence Griffiths’ rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his ‘consistent quantum theory’ shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive framework. This necessary existence, within the ‘consistent’ framework, of long range essentially instantaneous influences refutes the claim made by Griffiths that his ‘consistent’ framework is superior to the orthodox quantum theory of von Neumann because it does not entail instantaneous influences. An added section responds to Griffiths’ reply, which cites a litany of ambiguities that seem to restrict, devastatingly, the scope of his CQT formalism, apparently to buttress his claim that my use of that formalism to validate the nonlocality theorem is flawed. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question. It is show here in detail why the precise statement of this theorem justifies the specified application of CQT. It is also shown, in response to his challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has proposed is not valid.

•Nov 10, 2011•0 citations

Quantum Locality?

Henry Pierce Stapp

Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a ‘consistent quantum theory’ (CQT) that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues, on the basis of his examination of certain arguments that claim to demonstrate the existence of such nonlocal influences, that such influences do not exist. However, his examination was restricted mainly to hidden-variable-based arguments that include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by attributing to the system properties alien to that system. Hence Griffiths’ rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his ‘consistent quantum theory’ shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive framework. This necessary existence, within the ‘consistent’ framework, of long range essentially instantaneous influences refutes the claim made by Griffiths that his ‘consistent’ framework is superior to the orthodox quantum theory of von Neumann because it does not entail instantaneous influences. An added section responds to Griffiths’ reply, which cites a litany of ambiguities that seem to restrict, devastatingly, the scope of his CQT formalism, apparently to buttress his claim that my use of that formalism to validate the nonlocality theorem is flawed. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question. It is show here in detail why the precise statement of this theorem justifies the specified application of CQT. It is also shown, in response to his challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has proposed is not valid.

•Jun 20, 2016•0 citations
In a series of recent papers, Hirota and Yuen claim to have identified a fundamental flaw in the theory underlying quantum cryptography, which would invalidate existing security proofs. In this short note, we sketch their argument and show that their conclusion is unjustified --- it originates from a confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria for secrecy.
In a recent note (arXiv:1209.2423) Renner claims that the criticisms of Hirota and Yuen on the security foundation of quantum key distribution arose from a logical mistake. In this paper it is shown that Renner misrepresents the claims of Yuen and also Hirota while adopting one main theorem of Yuen in lieu of his own previous error. This leads to his incoherent position which ignores quantitative security criterion levels that undermine the current security claims, a main point of the Yuen and Hirota criticisms. This security criterion issue has never been properly addressed in the literature and is here fully discussed, as are several common misconceptions on QKD security. Other foundational issues are touched upon to bring out further the present precarious state of quantum key distribution security proofs.
Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a ‘consistent quantum theory’ (CQT) that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues, on the basis of his examination of certain arguments that claim to demonstrate the existence of such nonlocal influences, that such influences do not exist. However, his examination was restricted mainly to hidden-variable-based arguments that include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by attributing to the system properties alien to that system. Hence Griffiths’ rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his ‘consistent quantum theory’ shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive framework. This necessary existence, within the ‘consistent’ framework, of long range essentially instantaneous influences refutes the claim made by Griffiths that his ‘consistent’ framework is superior to the orthodox quantum theory of von Neumann because it does not entail instantaneous influences. An added section responds to Griffiths’ reply, which cites a litany of ambiguities that seem to restrict, devastatingly, the scope of his CQT formalism, apparently to buttress his claim that my use of that formalism to validate the nonlocality theorem is flawed. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question. It is show here in detail why the precise statement of this theorem justifies the specified application of CQT. It is also shown, in response to his challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has proposed is not valid.
Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a ‘consistent quantum theory’ (CQT) that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues, on the basis of his examination of certain arguments that claim to demonstrate the existence of such nonlocal influences, that such influences do not exist. However, his examination was restricted mainly to hidden-variable-based arguments that include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by attributing to the system properties alien to that system. Hence Griffiths’ rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his ‘consistent quantum theory’ shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive framework. This necessary existence, within the ‘consistent’ framework, of long range essentially instantaneous influences refutes the claim made by Griffiths that his ‘consistent’ framework is superior to the orthodox quantum theory of von Neumann because it does not entail instantaneous influences. An added section responds to Griffiths’ reply, which cites a litany of ambiguities that seem to restrict, devastatingly, the scope of his CQT formalism, apparently to buttress his claim that my use of that formalism to validate the nonlocality theorem is flawed. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question. It is show here in detail why the precise statement of this theorem justifies the specified application of CQT. It is also shown, in response to his challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has proposed is not valid.