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.
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.
It has been pointed out by Yuen that the security theory of quantum key distribution(QKD) guided by Shor-Preskill theory has serious defects, in particular their key rate theory is not correct. Theory groups of QKD tried to improve several defects. Especially, Renner employed trace distance and quantum leftover Hash Lemma. However, the present theory encountered a problem of a quantitative evaluation of security. To cope with it, he uses a wrong interpretation on the trace distance and its level epsilon_{sec}, and justifies the unconditional security of own system when epsilon_{sec} is 10^{-6 } ~ 10^{-20}. In this paper, we discuss the following problems. What is the origin of the misconception of the present theory? How does the present theory lead to the misconception?. To show their process toward the misconception, Koashi-Preskill's theory which has a typical misconception is examined. A main point of our comment is that QKD theory ignores the security requirement against attacker which is necessary to compare whole encryption schemes from classical to quantum. To clarify it, we emphasize that the trace distance itself cannot have any operational meaning such as failure probability, and it is only mathematical tool as a measure of closeness. As a result, it is given that the security with above values derived from their formulation means nothing in the general cryptological sense. In addition, I point out that a comment by Bennett and Riedel on unconditional security of QKD is not correct. Also, I point out that the experimental systems of groups of Los Alamos, Toshiba-UK, NICT, and others cannot have security guarantee even in future.
It is claimed in the many papers that a trace distance (d) guarantees the universal composition security in quantum key distribution (QKD). In this introduction paper, at first, it is explicitly explained what is the main misconception in the claim of the unconditional security for QKD theory. In general terms, the cause of the misunderstanding on the security claim is the Lemma in the paper of Renner. It suggests that the generation of the perfect random key is assured by the probability (1 − d), and its failure probability is d. Thus, it concludes that the generated key provides the perfect random key sequence when the protocol suceeds. So the QKD provides perfect secrecy to the one time pad. This is the reason for the composition claim. However, the quantity of the trace distance (or variational distance) is not the probability for such an event. If d is not small enough, always the generated key sequence is not uniform. Now one needs the reconstruction of the evaluation of the trace distance if one wants to use it. One should first go back to the indistinguishability theory in the computational complexity based, and to clarify the meaning of the value of the variational distance. In addition, the same analysis for the information theoretic case is necessary. The recent serial papers by H.P.Yuen have given the answer on such questions. In this paper, we show more concise description of Yuen’s theory, and clarify that the recent upper bound theories for the trace distance by Tomamichel et al and Hayashi et al are constructed based on the reasoning of Renner and it is unsuitable as the analysis for information theoretic security. Finally, we introduce a macroscopic quantum communication with different principle to replace Q-bit QKD.
Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) has been attracting researchers that it would provide provable security to distribute secret keys since its birth in 1984. Since 2005, the trace distance between an ideal quantum state and an actually distributed state has been employed to evaluate its security level, and the trace distance was given an interpretation that it would be a maximum failure probability in distributing perfectly secure keys. However, in 2009, H. P. Yuen criticized that the trace distance would not have such an interpretation. Since then, O. Hirota, K. Kato, and T. Iwakoshi have been warning to make people pay attention to Yuen's criticisms. In 2015, T. Iwakoshi precisely explained why Yuen has been correct. In 2016, Yuen himself published a paper to explain the potentially unsolved problems in QKD. This study precisely explains the most important problems given in Yuen's paper, and gives recent topics around QKD and other quantum cryptographic protocols.
The security issues facing quantum key distribution (QKD) are explained, herein focusing on those issues that are cryptographic and information theoretic in nature and not those based on physics. The problem of security criteria is addressed. It is demonstrated that an attacker's success probabilities are the fundamental criteria of security that any theoretic security criterion must relate to in order to have operational significance. The errors committed in the prevalent interpretation of the trace distance criterion are analyzed. The security proofs of QKD protocols are discussed and assessed in regard to three main features: their validity, completeness, and adequacy of the achieved numerical security level. Problems are identified in all these features. It appears that the QKD security situation is quite different from the common perception that a QKD-generated key is nearly perfectly secure. Built into our discussion is a simple but complete quantitative description of the information theoretic security of classical key distribution that is also applicable to the quantum situation. In the appendices, we provide a brief outline of the history of some major QKD security proofs, a rather unfavorable comparison of current QKD proven security with that of conventional symmetric key ciphers, and a list of objections and answers concerning some major points of the paper.
Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) is revolutionizing cryptography by promising information-theoretic security through the immutable laws of quantum mechanics. Yet, the challenge of transforming these idealized security models into practical, resilient systems remains a pressing issue, especially as quantum computing evolves. In this review, we critically dissect and synthesize the latest advancements in QKD protocols and their security vulnerabilities, with a strong emphasis on rigorous security proofs. We actively categorize contemporary QKD schemes into three key classes: uncertainty principle-based protocols (e.g., BB84), hybrid architectures that enable secure direct communication (eg, three-stage protocol), and continuous-variable frameworks. We further include two modern classes of QKD protocols, namely Twin-field QKD and Device-Independent QKD, both of which were developed to have practical implementations over the last decade. Moreover, we highlight important experimental breakthroughs and innovative mitigation strategies, including the deployment of advanced Quantum Error Correction Codes (QECCs), that significantly enhance channel fidelity and system robustness. By mapping the current landscape, from sophisticated quantum attacks to state-of-the-art error correction methods, this review fills an important gap in the literature. To bring everything together, the relevance of this review concerning quantum augmented networks (QuANets) is also presented. This allows the readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the security promises of quantum key distribution from theoretical proofs to experimental validations.