We introduce a quantum cloning bound which we apply to a straightforward and relatively direct security proof of the prepare-and-measure Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol against collective attacks. The approach we propose is able to handle the practical problem of source and detector alignment imprecisions in a simple way. Specifically, we derive a key-rate bound for a BB84 implementation in which Alice's source emits four given but arbitrary pure states, where the usual equivalence between prepare-and-measure and entanglement-based QKD no longer applies. Our result is similar to a key rate derived by Mar\o{}y et al. [Phys. Rev. A 82, 032337 (2010)] and generally an improvement over the key rate derivable from the entropic uncertainty relation in situations where it applies. We also provide a stronger result for a source emitting arbitrary qubit states, and a further improved result if the detector is additionally assumed two dimensional.
We introduce a quantum cloning bound which we apply to a straightforward and relatively direct security proof of the prepare-and-measure Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol against collective attacks. The approach we propose is able to handle the practical problem of source and detector alignment imprecisions in a simple way. Specifically, we derive a key-rate bound for a BB84 implementation in which Alice's source emits four given but arbitrary pure states, where the usual equivalence between prepare-and-measure and entanglement-based QKD no longer applies. Our result is similar to a key rate derived by Mar\o{}y et al. [Phys. Rev. A 82, 032337 (2010)] and generally an improvement over the key rate derivable from the entropic uncertainty relation in situations where it applies. We also provide a stronger result for a source emitting arbitrary qubit states, and a further improved result if the detector is additionally assumed two dimensional.
Local randomization is a preprocessing procedure in which one of the legitimate parties of a quantum key distribution (QKD) scheme adds noise to their version of the key and was found by Kraus et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 080501 (2005)] to improve the security of certain QKD protocols. In this article, the improvement yielded by local randomization is derived for an imperfect implementation of the Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) QKD protocol, in which the source emits four given but arbitrary pure states and the detector performs arbitrarily aligned measurements. Specifically, this is achieved by modifying an approach to analyzing the security of imperfect variants of the BB84 protocol against collective attacks, introduced in [Phys. Rev. A 88, 012331 (2013)], to include the additional preprocessing step. The previously known improvement to the threshold channel noise, from 11% to 12.41%, is recovered in the special case of an ideal BB84 implementation and becomes more pronounced in the case of a nonideal source. Finally, the bound derived for the asymptotic key rate, both with and without local randomization, is shown to be tight with the particular source characterization used. This is demonstrated by the explicit construction of a family of source states and optimal attacks for which the key-rate bound is attained with equality.
Every quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol must limit the information available outside the users' laboratories. In device-independent QKD this is essentially the only assumption made on the devices. In a prepare-and-measure setting it cannot be imposed strictly, since the sender's device must emit a signal that depends on her private input. The natural replacement, and a minimal one, is a leakage bound: a bound on how much information about the input leaves the sender's laboratory, through the intended signal or through any side channel. We ask how far this unavoidable requirement can replace a detailed model of the source. We show that this single bound, quantified by the probability of guessing the input from everything the source emits, suffices to prove security against collective attacks. In our analysis, nothing is assumed about the precise form of the emitted states, their dimension, energy or purity, nor about the receiver's measurement device, beyond the standard requirement that it does not leak Bob's data. The standard B92 and BB84 protocols do not certify any key under this minimal leakage bound assumption. But closely related protocols can and, in the ideal limit, achieve one secret bit per key round. For noisy implementations, we compute key rates using semidefinite programming relaxations. Our best protocols tolerate visibilities down to 0.84, corresponding to an 8% quantum bit error rate, compared with the 11% threshold of standard device-dependent BB84.
Quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols are intended to allow cryptographic keys to be generated and distributed in way that is provably secure based on inherent limitations, such as the no-cloning principle, imposed by quantum mechanics. This unique advantage compared with classical cryptography comes with an added difficulty: key bits in QKD protocols are encoded in analogue quantum states and their preparation is consequently subject to the usual imprecisions inevitable in any real world experiment. The negative impact of such imprecisions is illustrated for the BB84 QKD protocol. Following this, the main part of this thesis is concerned with the incorporation of such imprecisions in security proofs of the BB84 and two semi-device-independent protocols against the class of collective attacks. On a technical level, by contrast with the vast majority of security proofs developed since the turn of the century, in which recasting the protocol into an equivalent entanglement-based form features heavily in the analysis, the main results obtained here are approached directly from the prepare-and-measure perspective and in particular the connection with the no-cloning theorem and an early security proof by Fuchs et al. against the class of individual attacks is emphasised. This thesis also summarises, as an appendix, a separate project which introduces and defines a hierarchy of polytopes intermediate between the local and no-signalling polytopes from the field of Bell nonlocality.
In this thesis we develop practical tools for quantum key distribution (QKD) security proofs. We apply the tools to provide security proofs for several protocols, ranging from discrete variable protocols in high dimensions, protocols with realistic implementations, measurement device independent QKD and continuous-variable QKD. The security proofs are based on the Devetak-Winter security framework [I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proc. of the Roy. Soc. of London Series A, 461, 207 (2005); B. Kraus, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95 080501 (2005)]. \n \nIn the key rate calculation, it is often convenient to assume that the optimal attack is symmetric. \nUnder the assumption that the parameter estimation is based on coarse-grained observations, we show that the optimal attack is symmetric, if the protocol and the postselection have sufficient symmetries. \nAs an example we calculate the key rates of protocols using 2, d and d+1 mutually unbiased bases in d-dimensional Hilbert spaces. \n \nWe investigate the connection between the optimal collective eavesdropping attack and the optimal cloning attack, in which the eavesdropper employs an optimal cloner to attack the protocol. \nWe find that, in general, it does not hold that the optimal attack is an optimal cloner. However, there are classes of protocols, for which we can identify the optimal attack by an optimal cloner. \nWe analyze protocols with mutually unbiased bases in d dimensions, and show that for the protocols with 2 and d+1 mutually unbiased bases the optimal attack is an optimal cloner, but for the protocols with d mutually unbiased bases, it is not. \n \nIn optical implementations of the phase-encoded BB84 protocol, the bit information is usually encoded in the phase of two consecutive photon pulses generated in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In the actual experimental realization, the loss in the arms of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer is not balanced, for example because only one arm contains a lossy phase modulator. \nSince the imbalance changes the structure of the signals states and measurements, the BB84 security analysis no longer applies in this scenario. \nWe provide a security proof for the unbalanced phase-encoded BB84. The loss does lower the key rate compared to a protocol without loss. However, for a realistic parameter regime, the same key rate is found by applying the original BB84 security analysis. \n \nRecently, the security of a measurement device-independent QKD setup with BB84 signal states was proven in Refs. [H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108 (2012); S. L. Braunstein and S. Pirandola, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108 (2012)]. In this setup Alice and Bob send quantum states to an intermediate node, which performs the measurement, and is assumed to be controlled by Eve. \nWe analyze the security of a measurement device-independent QKD protocol with B92 signal states, and calculate the key rates numerically for a realistic implementation. \nBased on our security proof we were able to prove the security of the strong reference pulse B92 protocol. \n \nWe analyze the security of continuous-variable protocols using the entropic uncertainty relations established in Ref. [M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, Nature Physics 6, 659 (2010)] to provide an estimate of the key rate based on the observed first and second moments. We analyze a protocol with squeezed coherent states and the 2-state protocol with two coherent states with opposite phases.
We present a technique for proving the security of quantum-key-distribution (QKD) protocols. It is based on direct information-theoretic arguments and thus also applies if no equivalent entanglement purification scheme can be found. Using this technique, we investigate a general class of QKD protocols with one-way classical post-processing. We show that, in order to analyze the full security of these protocols, it suffices to consider collective attacks. Indeed, we give new lower and upper bounds on the secret-key rate which only involve entropies of two-qubit density operators and which are thus easy to compute. As an illustration of our results, we analyze the Bennett-Brassard 1984, the six-state, and the Bennett 1992 protocols with one-way error correction and privacy amplification. Surprisingly, the performance of these protocols is increased if one of the parties adds noise to the measurement data before the error correction. In particular, this additional noise makes the protocols more robust against noise in the quantum channel.
The Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) protocol is the most widely implemented quantum key distribution (QKD) scheme. However, despite enormous theoretical and experimental efforts in the past decades, the security of this protocol with imperfect sources has not yet been rigorously established. In this paper, we address this shortcoming and prove the security of the BB84 protocol in the presence of multiple source imperfections, including state preparation flaws and side channels, such as Trojan-horse attacks, mode dependencies and classical correlations between the emitted pulses. To do so, we consider a modified BB84 protocol that exploits the basis mismatched events, which are often discarded in standard security analyses of this scheme; and employ the reference technique, a powerful mathematical tool to accommodate source imperfections in the security analysis of QKD. Moreover, we compare the achievable secret-key rate of the modified BB84 protocol with that of the three-state loss-tolerant protocol, and show that the addition of a fourth state, while redundant in ideal conditions, significantly improves the estimation of the leaked information in the presence of source imperfections, resulting in a better performance. This paper demonstrates the relevance of the BB84 protocol in guaranteeing implementation security, taking us a step further towards closing the existing gap between theory and practice of QKD.