Abstract A recent IEEE Access Paper by Gunn, Allison and Abbott (GAA) proposed a new transient attack against the Kirchhoff-law-Johnson-noise (KLJN) secure key exchange system. The attack is valid, but it is easy to build a defense for the KLJN system. Here we note that GAA’s paper contains several invalid statements regarding security measures and the continuity of functions in classical physics. These deficiencies are clarified in our present paper, wherein we also emphasize that a new version of the KLJN system is immune against all existing attacks, including the one by GAA.
Abstract A recent IEEE Access Paper by Gunn, Allison and Abbott (GAA) proposed a new transient attack against the Kirchhoff-law-Johnson-noise (KLJN) secure key exchange system. The attack is valid, but it is easy to build a defense for the KLJN system. Here we note that GAA’s paper contains several invalid statements regarding security measures and the continuity of functions in classical physics. These deficiencies are clarified in our present paper, wherein we also emphasize that a new version of the KLJN system is immune against all existing attacks, including the one by GAA.
A recent paper by Gunn–Allison–Abbott (GAA) [L. J. Gunn et al., Scientific Reports 4 (2014) 6461] argued that the Kirchhoff-law–Johnson-noise (KLJN) secure key exchange system could experience a severe information leak. Here we refute their results and demonstrate that GAA's arguments ensue from a serious design flaw in their system. Specifically, an attenuator broke the single Kirchhoff-loop into two coupled loops, which is an incorrect operation since the single loop is essential for the security in the KLJN system, and hence GAA's asserted information leak is trivial. Another consequence is that a fully defended KLJN system would not be able to function due to its built-in current-comparison defense against active (invasive) attacks. In this paper we crack GAA's scheme via an elementary current-comparison attack which yields negligible error probability for Eve even without averaging over the correlation time of the noise.
Abstract Recently, Gunn, Allison and Abbott (GAA) [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.2709v2.pdf] proposed a new scheme to utilize electromagnetic waves for eavesdropping on the Kirchhoff-law-Johnson-noise (KLJN) secure key distribution. We proved in a former paper [Fluct. Noise Lett. 13 (2014) 1450016] that GAA’s mathematical model is unphysical. Here we analyze GAA’s cracking scheme and show that, in the case of a loss-free cable, it provides less eavesdropping information than in the earlier (Bergou)-Scheuer-Yariv mean-square-based attack [Kish LB, Scheuer J, Phys. Lett. A 374:2140-2142 (2010)], while it offers no information in the case of a lossy cable. We also investigate GAA’s claim to be experimentally capable of distinguishing—using statistics over a few correlation times only—the distributions of two Gaussian noises with a relative variance difference of less than 10-8. Normally such distinctions would require hundreds of millions of correlations times to be observable. We identify several potential experimental artifacts as results of poor KLJN design, which can lead to GAA’s assertions: deterministic currents due to spurious harmonic components caused by ground loops, DC offset, aliasing, non-Gaussian features including non-linearities and other non-idealities in generators, and the timederivative nature of GAA’s scheme which tends to enhance all of these artifacts.
Recently Gunn, Allison and Abbott (GAA) [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.2709v2.pdf] proposed a new scheme to utilize electromagnetic waves for eavesdropping on the Kirchhoff-law‐Johnson-noise (KLJN) secure key distribution. In a former paper [http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0964v4.pdf], we proved that CAA's wave-based attack is unphysical. Here we address their experimental results regarding this attack. Our analysis shows that GAA virtually claim that they can identify, in a few correlation times that, from two Gaussian distributions with zero mean, which one is wider when their relative width difference is <10 -4 . Normally, such decision would need millions of correlations times to observe. We identify the experimental artifact causing this situation: existing DC current and/or ground loop (yielding slow deterministic currents) in the system. It is important to note that, while the GAA's cracking scheme, the experiments and the analysis are invalid, there is an important benefit of their attempt: our analysis implies that, in practical KLJN systems, DC currents ground loops or any other mechanisms carrying a deterministic current/voltage component must be taken care of to avoid information leak about the key.
The security vulnerability of the Vadai, Mingesz, and Gingl (VMG) Kirchhoff–Law–Johnson–Noise (KLJN) key exchanger, as presented in the publication “Nature, Science Report 5 (2015) 13653”, has been exposed to transient attacks. Recently an effective defense protocol was introduced (Appl. Phys. Lett. 122 (2023) 143503) to counteract mean-square voltage-based (or mean-square current-based) transient attacks targeted at the ideal KLJN framework. In this study, this same mitigation methodology has been employed to fortify the security of the VMG-KLJN key exchanger. It is worth noting that the protective measures need to be separately implemented for the HL and LH scenarios. This conceptual framework is corroborated through computer simulations, demonstrating that the application of this defensive technique substantially mitigates information leakage to a point of insignificance.
In (Nature) Science Report 5 (2015) 13653, Vadai, Mingesz and Gingl (VMG) introduce a new Kirchhoff-law-Johnson-noise (KLJN) secure key exchanger that operates with 4 arbitrary resistors (instead of 2 arbitrary resistance values forming 2 identical resistor pairs in the original system). They state that in this new, VMG-KLJN, non-equilibrium system with nonzero power flow, the security during the exchange of the two (HL and LH) bit values is as strong as in the original KLJN scheme. Moreover, they claim that, at practical conditions, their VMG-KLJN protocol “supports more robust protection against attacks”. First, we investigate the power flow and thermal equilibrium issues of the VMG-KLJN system with 4 arbitrary resistors. Then we introduce a new KLJN protocol that allows the arbitrary choice of 3 resistors from the 4, while it still operates with zero power flow during the exchange of single bits by utilizing a specific value of the 4th resistor and a binary temperature set for the exchanged (HL and LH) bit values. Then we show that, in general, the KLJN schemes with more than 2 arbitrary resistors (including our new protocol mentioned above) are prone to 4 new passive attacks utilizing the parasitic capacitance and inductance in the cable, while the original KLJN scheme is naturally immune against these new attacks. The core of the security vulnerability exploited by these attacks is the different line resistances in the HL and LH cases. Therefore, on the contrary of the statement and claim cited above, the practical VMG-KLJN system is less secure than the original KLJN scheme. We introduce another 2, modified, non-equilibrium KLJN systems to eliminate the vulnerability against some - but not all - of these attacks. However the price for that is the loss of arbitrariness of the selection of the 4th resistor and the information leak still remains greater than zero.
We demonstrate the security vulnerability of an ideal Kirchhoff–Law–Johnson–Noise key exchanger against transient attacks. Transients start when Alice and Bob connect a wire to their chosen resistor at the beginning of each clock cycle. A transient attack takes place during a short duration of time, before the transients reflected from the end of Alice and Bob mix together. The information leak arises from the fact that Eve (the eavesdropper) monitors the cable and analyzes the transients during this time period. We will demonstrate such a transient attack, and then, we introduce a defense protocol to protect against the attack. Computer simulations demonstrate that after applying the defense method the information leak becomes negligible.