We analyze the security of two multipartite quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols, specifically we introduce an N -partite version of the BB84 protocol and we discuss the N -partite six-state protocol proposed by Epping et al (2017 New J. Phys. 19 093012). The security analysis proceeds from the generalization of known results in bipartite QKD to the multipartite scenario, and takes into account finite resources. In this context we derive a computable expression for the achievable key rate of both protocols by employing the best-known strategies: the uncertainty relation and the postselection technique. We compare the performances of the two protocols both for finite resources and infinitely many signals.
We analyze the security of two multipartite quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols, specifically we introduce an N -partite version of the BB84 protocol and we discuss the N -partite six-state protocol proposed by Epping et al (2017 New J. Phys. 19 093012). The security analysis proceeds from the generalization of known results in bipartite QKD to the multipartite scenario, and takes into account finite resources. In this context we derive a computable expression for the achievable key rate of both protocols by employing the best-known strategies: the uncertainty relation and the postselection technique. We compare the performances of the two protocols both for finite resources and infinitely many signals.
We compare the effect of different noise scenarios on the achievable rate of an ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}_{}$-secure key for the BB84 and the six-state protocol. We study the situation where quantum noise is added deliberately, and investigate the remarkable benefit for the finite key rate. We compare our results to the known case of added classical noise and the asymptotic key rate, i.e., in the limit of infinitely many signals. As a complementary interpretation, we show that under the realistic assumption that the noise which is unavoidably introduced by a real channel is not fully dedicated to the eavesdropper, the secret key rate increases significantly.
The laws of quantum mechanics allow for the distribution of a secret random key between two parties.Here we analyse the security of a protocol for establishing a common secret key between N parties (i.e. a conference key), using resource states with genuine N-partite entanglement.We compare this protocol to conference key distribution via bipartite entanglement, regarding the required resources, achievable secret key rates and threshold qubit error rates.Furthermore we discuss quantum networks with bottlenecks for which our multipartite entanglement-based protocol can benefit from network coding, while the bipartite protocol cannot.It is shown how this advantage leads to a higher secret key rate. Multipartite QKD: protocol and security analysisThe entanglement-based Ekert protocol [7] can be generalised to N parties as follows, see also [31,34].The parties A and B 1 , B 2 , ..., B N 1 -share an N-partite entangled state and perform local projective measurements.The
Abstract Quantum key distribution (QKD) allows for secure communications safe against attacks by quantum computers. QKD protocols are performed by sending a sizeable, but finite, number of quantum signals between the distant parties involved. Many QKD experiments, however, predict their achievable key rates using asymptotic formulas, which assume the transmission of an infinite number of signals, partly because QKD proofs with finite transmissions (and finite-key lengths) can be difficult. Here we develop a robust numerical approach for calculating the key rates for QKD protocols in the finite-key regime in terms of two semi-definite programs (SDPs). The first uses the relation between conditional smooth min-entropy and quantum relative entropy through the quantum asymptotic equipartition property, and the second uses the relation between the smooth min-entropy and quantum fidelity. The numerical programs are formulated under the assumption of collective attacks from the eavesdropper and can be promoted to withstand coherent attacks using the postselection technique. We then solve these SDPs using convex optimization solvers and obtain numerical calculations of finite-key rates for several protocols difficult to analyze analytically, such as BB84 with unequal detector efficiencies, B92, and twin-field QKD. Our numerical approach democratizes the composable security proofs for QKD protocols where the derived keys can be used as an input to another cryptosystem.
In the original BB84 quantum key distribution protocol, the states are prepared and measured randomly, which lose the unmatched detection results. To improve the sifting efficiency, biased bases selection BB84 protocol is proposed. Meanwhile, a practical quantum key distribution protocol can only transmit a finite number of signals, resulting in keys of finite length. The previous techniques for finite-key analysis focus mainly on the statistical fluctuations of the error rates and yields of the qubits. However, the prior choice probabilities of the two bases also have fluctuations by taking into account the finite-size effect. In this paper, we discuss the security of biased decoy state BB84 protocol with finite resources by considering all of the statistical fluctuations. The results can be directly used in the experimental realizations.
In this work we present a security analysis for quantum key distribution, establishing a rigorous tradeoff between various protocol and security parameters for a class of entanglement-based and prepare-and-measure protocols. The goal of this paper is twofold: 1) to review and clarify the stateof-the-art security analysis based on entropic uncertainty relations, and 2) to provide an accessible resource for researchers interested in a security analysis of quantum cryptographic protocols that takes into account finite resource effects. For this purpose we collect and clarify several arguments spread in the literature on the subject with the goal of making this treatment largely self-contained. More precisely, we focus on a class of prepare-and-measure protocols based on the Bennett-Brassard (BB84) protocol as well as a class of entanglement-based protocols similar to the Bennett-Brassard-Mermin (BBM92) protocol. We carefully formalize the different steps in these protocols, including randomization, measurement, parameter estimation, error correction and privacy amplification, allowing us to be mathematically precise throughout the security analysis. We start from an operational definition of what it means for a quantum key distribution protocol to be secure and derive simple conditions that serve as sufficient condition for secrecy and correctness. We then derive and eventually discuss tradeoff relations between the block length of the classical computation, the noise tolerance, the secret key length and the security parameters for our protocols. Our results significantly improve upon previously reported tradeoffs.
We compare three proof techniques for composable finite-size security of quantum key distribution under collective attacks, with emphasis on how the resulting secret-key rates behave at practically relevant block lengths. As a benchmark, we consider the BB84 protocol and evaluate finite-size key-rate estimates obtained from entropic uncertainty relations (EUR), from the asymptotic equipartition property (AEP), and from a direct finite-block analysis based on the conditional min-entropy, which we refer to as the finite-size min-entropy (FME) approach. For BB84 we show that the EUR-based bound provides the most favorable performance across the considered parameter range, while the AEP bound is asymptotically tight but can become overly pessimistic at moderate and small block sizes, where it may fail to certify a positive key. The FME approach remains effective in this small-block regime, yielding nonzero rates in situations where the AEP estimate vanishes, although it is not asymptotically optimal for BB84. These results motivate the use of FME-type analyses for continuous-variable protocols in settings where tight EUR-based bounds are unavailable, notably for coherent-state schemes where current finite-size analyses typically rely on AEP-style corrections.