While fully device-independent security in BB84-like one way QKD is impossible, it can be guaranteed against individual attacks in a semi device-independent scenario, where no assumptions on the characteristics of the hardware used are made except for the communication channel for which an upper bound on capacity is put. This approach is meaningful especially in the context of recent {\it quantum hacking} attacks in which the eavesdroppers are able to remotely alter the behaviour of the devices used by the communicating parties. They are however unable to change the capacity of the channel.
In this work we study a semi device-independent protocol wherein the knowledge of success probability of the associated dimension witness and the observed efficiency of the detectors ($\eta_{avg}$) are sufficient to determine the security. We consider practically possible, individual attacks with and without eavesdropper having access to quantum memory. We find critical detection efficiencies required for security in both cases.
While fully device-independent security in BB84-like one way QKD is impossible, it can be guaranteed against individual attacks in a semi device-independent scenario, where no assumptions on the characteristics of the hardware used are made except for the communication channel for which an upper bound on capacity is put. This approach is meaningful especially in the context of recent {\it quantum hacking} attacks in which the eavesdroppers are able to remotely alter the behaviour of the devices used by the communicating parties. They are however unable to change the capacity of the channel.
In this work we study a semi device-independent protocol wherein the knowledge of success probability of the associated dimension witness and the observed efficiency of the detectors (ηavg) are sufficient to determine the security. We consider practically possible, individual attacks with and without eavesdropper having access to quantum memory. We find critical detection efficiencies required for security in both cases.
While fully device-independent security in (BB84-like) prepare-and-measure quantum key distribution (QKD) is impossible, it can be guaranteed against individual attacks in a semi-device-independent (SDI) scenario, wherein no assumptions are made on the characteristics of the hardware used except for an upper bound on the dimension of the communicated system. Studying security under such minimal assumptions is especially relevant in the context of the recent quantum hacking attacks wherein the eavesdroppers can not only construct the devices used by the communicating parties but are also able to remotely alter their behavior. In this work, we study the security of a SDIQKD protocol based on the prepare-and-measure quantum implementation of a well-known cryptographic primitive, the random access code (RAC). We consider imperfect detectors and establish the critical values of the security parameters (the observed success probability of the RAC and the detection efficiency) required for guaranteeing security against eavesdroppers with and without quantum memory. Furthermore, we suggest a minimal characterization of the preparation device in order to lower the requirements for establishing a secure key.
By testing nonlocality, the security of entanglement-based quantum key distribution (QKD) can be enhanced to being ``device-independent.'' Here we ask whether such a strong form of security could also be established for one-way (prepare and measure) QKD. While fully device-independent security is impossible, we show that security can be guaranteed against individual attacks in a semi-device-independent scenario. In the latter, the devices used by the trusted parties are noncharacterized, but the dimensionality of the quantum systems used in the protocol is assumed to be bounded. Our security proof relies on the analogies between one-way QKD, dimension witnesses, and random-access codes.
Cryptography is essential for secure communication in the digital era. Today, public-key cryptography is widely employed, and has provided an efficient method for encrypting content and ensuring both confidentiality and authenticity of electronic communications. However, the security of these systems is based on assumptions of computational hardness within the constraints of current computing capability. Thus, as quantum computing becomes a reality, public-key algorithms will be genuinely vulnerable to attack. By contrast, quantum cryptography, which is based on quantum physics instead of mathematical assumptions, is able to achieve information-theoretic security. \n \nAdvances in practical quantum cryptographic systems have not kept pace with theory, where an eavesdropper can relatively easily exploit loopholes in practical implementations to compromise theory-proved security. Bridging the gap between perfect theory and imperfect practice has become a priority for the growing field of quantum key distribution (QKD), which has strived to strengthen the practical security of QKD systems. Among all the countermeasures against quantum hacking, the measurement-device-independent (MDI) QKD protocol is promising because it is immune to all side-channel attacks on measurement devices. However, the MDI QKD protocol has some limitations that critically restrict its practical usefulness. Technically, the MDI scheme is not compatible with existing QKD systems, and produces a low key rate. In addition, the theory underlying MDI QKD security is based on the use of trusted source stations. Thus, this protocol is not a universal solution. This thesis further investigates the practical security of quantum cryptography in and beyond MDI quantum cryptography. \n \nTo overcome the technical limitations of MDI QKD, we first evaluate two other countermeasures against imperfect detections. The first is an industrial patch based on random detection efficiency, recently implemented by ID Quantique in the commercial Clavis2 QKD system. While powerful, experimental testing shows that this countermeasure is not sufficient to defeat the detector blinding attack. The second countermeasure aims to achieve a higher key rate than MDI QKD while maintaining the same security properties. However, our research shows that detector-device-independent (DDI) QKD security is not equivalent to that of MDI QKD and, further, that DDI QKD is insecure against detector side-channel attacks. \n \nWhile this initial work points to the superior performance of MDI QKD systems, core challenges remain. The fundamental security assumption adopted for MDI QKD systems, regarding the exclusive use of trustable source stations, cannot always be satisfied in practice. Our study revealed several side channels of source devices. The first is disclosed from the implementation of a decoy-state protocol, which is widely used in QKD systems with weak coherent sources. The pump-current-modulated intensities result in a timing mismatch between the signal and decoy states, violating the key assumption in the decoy-state QKD protocol. Moreover, an active Eve can break the basic assumption about photon numbers in the QKD system. In this work, we experimentally demonstrate a laser seeding attack on the laser source, which shows that Eve can increase the emission power of the laser diode. Furthermore, by shining a high-power laser into an optical attenuator, Eve can decrease the attenuation values. The increase in laser emission power and the decrease in attenuation leads to an increase in mean photon numbers. \n \nIn summary, MDI QKD is a milestone in quantum cryptography. However, this thesis indicates the importance of continued investigations into the practical security of MDI QKD. The analysis of practical security should be extended to other countermeasures against side-channel attacks and the source stations in MDI QKD systems. Practical quantum hacking and security analysis promote the development of quantum cryptographic systems, which will eventually achieve the unconditional security claimed in theory.
Compared with the traditional BB84 protocol, the counterfactual quantum key distribution (QKD) does not rely on any signal travelling in the quantum channel, and therefore can present a security advantage where Eve cannot fully access signal. However, the practical system may be damaged in a scenario where the devices are untrusted. In this paper, we analyze the security of counterfactual QKD in untrusted detectors scenario. We show that the requirement to disclose "which detector clicked" has become the main loophole in all counterfactual QKD versions. An eavesdropping scheme which is similar to the memory attack on device-independent QKD could break its security by exploiting detectors' imperfections. We consider two different counterfactual QKD protocols and analyze their security against this major loophole. One is a modified Noh09 protocol, which would be secure in untrusted detectors context. Another is a variant of counterfactual QKD with high efficiency (Phys. Rev. A 104 (2021) 022424) against a series of detectors side-channel attacks as well as against other attacks that exploit detectors imperfections.
Similar to device-independent quantum key distribution (DI-QKD), semi-device-independent quantum key distribution (SDI-QKD) provides secure key distribution without any assumptions about the internal workings of the QKD devices. The only assumption is that the dimension of the Hilbert space is bounded. But SDI-QKD can be implemented in a one-way prepare-and-measure configuration without entanglement compared with DI-QKD. We propose a practical SDI-QKD protocol with four preparation states and three measurement bases by considering the maximal violation of dimension witnesses and specific processes of a QKD protocol. Moreover, we prove the security of the SDI-QKD protocol against collective attacks based on the min-entropy and dimension witnesses. We also show a comparison of the secret key rate between the SDI-QKD protocol and the standard QKD.
Semi-device-independent quantum protocols realize information tasks -- e.g. secure key distribution, random access coding, and randomness generation -- in a scenario where no assumption on the internal working of the devices used in the protocol is made, except their dimension. These protocols offer two main advantages: first, their implementation is often less demanding than fully-device-independent protocols. Second, they are more secure than their device-dependent counterparts. Their classical analogous is represented by random access codes, which provide a general framework for describing one-sided classical communication tasks. We discuss conditions under which detection inefficiencies can be exploited by a malicious provider to fake the performance of semi-device-independent quantum and classical protocols -- and how to prevent it.