CRYPTO0914.ppt

Quantum cryptography 1
CHAPTER 13: Quantum cryptography
Quantum cryptography is cryptography of 21st century.
An important new feature of quantum cryptography is that
security of quantum cryptographic protocols is based on
the laws of nature – of quantum physics, and not on the
unproven assumptions of computational complexity .
Quantum cryptography is the first area of information
processing and communication in which quantum particle
physics laws are directly exploited to bring an essential
advantage in information processing.
IV054

MAIN OUTCOMES – so far
 It has been shown that would we have quantum computer, we
could design absolutely secure quantum generation of shared and
secret random classical keys.
 It has been proven that even without quantum computers
unconditionally secure quantum generation of classical secret and
shared keys is possible (in the sense that any eavesdropping is
detectable).
 Unconditionally secure basic quantum cryptographic primitives,
such as bit commitment and oblivious transfer, are impossible.
 Quantum zero-knowledge proofs exist for all NP-complete
languages
 Quantum teleportation and pseudo-telepathy are possible.
 Quantum cryptography and quantum networks are already in
advanced experimental stage.
IV054

BASICS of QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING
As an introduction to quantum cryptography
the very basic motivations, experiments,
principles, concepts and results of quantum
information processing and communication
will be briefly presented.
will be presented in the next few slides.

BASIC MOTIVATION
In quantum information processing we witness an
interaction between the two most important areas
of science and technology of 20-th century,
between
quantum physics and informatics.
This is very likely to have important consequences
for 21th century.

QUANTUM PHYSICS
Quantum physics deals with fundamental entities of physics –
particles like
• protons, electrons and neutrons (from which matter is built);
• photons (which carry electromagnetic radiation)
• various “elementary particles” which mediate other interactions in
physics.
•We call them particles in spite of the fact that some of their properties
are totally unlike the properties of what we call particles in our ordinary
classical world.
For example, a quantum particle can go through two places at the
same time and can interact with itself.
Because of that quantum physics is full of counterintuitive, weird,
mysterious and even paradoxical events.

FEYNMAN’s VIEW
I am going to tell you what Nature behaves like…..
However, do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it,
BUT HOW CAN IT BE LIKE THAT?
Because you will get ``down the drain’’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet
escaped
NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT CAN BE LIKE THAT
Richard Feynman (1965): The character of physical law.

CLASSICAL versus QUANTUM INFORMATION
Main properties of classical information:
1. It is easy to store, transmit and process classical information in time
and space.
2. It is easy to make (unlimited number of) copies of classical
information
3. One can measure classical information without disturbing it.
Main properties of quantum information:
1. It is difficult to store, transmit and process quantum information
2. There is no way to copy unknown quantum information
3. Measurement of quantum information destroys it, in general.

8
Quantum cryptography
Classical versus quantum computing
The essense of the difference between
classical computers and quantum computers
is in the way information is stored and processed.
In classical computers, information is represented on macroscopic level by
bits, which can take one of the two values
0 or 1
In quantum computers, information is represented on microscopic level using
qubits, (quantum bits) which can take on any from the following uncountable
many values
 | 0  + b | 1 
where , b are arbitrary complex numbers such that
|  | 2 + | b | 2 = 1.
IV054

CLASIICAL versus QUANTUM REGISTERS
An n bit classical register can store at any moment exactly
one n-bit string.
An n-qubit quantum register can store at any moment a
superposition of all 2n n-bit strings.
Consequently, on a quantum computer one can compute in
a single step with 2n values.
This enormous massive parallelism is one reason why
quantum computing can be so powerful.

10
CLASSICAL EXPERIMENTS
Figure 1: Experiment with bullets Figure 2: Experiments with waves
IV054

11
QUANTUM EXPERIMENTS
IV054
Figure 3: Two-slit experiment Figure 4: Two-slit experiment with an observation

12
THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES
P1 To each transfer from a quantum state f to a state y a complex number
y| f
is associated. This number is called the probability amplitude of the transfer and
|y| f | 2
is then the probability of the transfer.
IV054
P2 If a transfer from a quantum state f to a quantum state y can be decomposed
into two subsequent transfers
yf f
then the resulting amplitude of the transfer is the product of amplitudes of
subtransfers: y| f = y| f  f | f
P3 If a transfer from a state f to a state y has two independent alternatives
y j
then the resulting amplitude is the sum of amplitudes of two subtransfers.

13
QUANTUM SYSTEMS = HILBERT SPACE
Hilbert space Hn is n-dimensional complex vector space with
scalar product
This allows to define the norm of vectors as
Two vectors |f and |y are called orthogonal if f|y = 0.
A basis B of Hn is any set of n vectors |b1 |b2 |bn of the norm 1 which are
mutually orthogonal.
Given a basis B, any vector |y from Hn can be uniquelly expressed in the form
IV054
,
..
,
..
vectors
of 2
1
2
1
1
*
n
n
n
i
i
i
y
y
y
y
f
f
f
f
y
f
f
y 

 

.
f
f
f 
.
1



n
i
i
i b

y

14
BRA-KET NOTATION
Dirack introduced a very handy notation, so called bra-ket notation, to
deal with amplitudes, quantum states and linear functionals f: H  C.
If yf H, then
y|f - scalar product of y and f
(an amplitude of going from f to y).
|f - ket-vector (a column vector) - an equivalent to f
y| - bra-vector (a row vector) a linear functional on H
such that y|(|f ) = y|f
IV054

15
QUANTUM EVOLUTION / COMPUTATION
EVOLUTION COMPUTATION
in in
QUANTUM SYSTEM HILBERT SPACE
is described by
Schrödinger linear equation
where h is Planck constant, H(t) is a Hamiltonian (total energy) of the system that can
be represented by a Hermitian matrix and Φ(t) is the state of the system in time t.
If the Hamiltonian is time independent then the above Shrödinger equation has solution
where
is the evolution operator that can be represented by a unitary matrix. A step of such an
evolution is therefore a multiplication of a unitary matrix A with a vector |y , i.e. A |y
IV054
A matrix A is unitary if
A · A* = A* · A = I







)
(
|
)
(
)
(
|
t
t
H
t
t
ih



 )
0
(
|
)
(
)
(
| t
U
t
h
iHt
e
t
U /
)
( 

16
Very important one-qubit unary operators are the following Pauli operators,
expressed in the standard basis as follows;
PAULI MATRICES

















 










1
0
0
1
,
0
1
1
0
,
0
1
1
0
z
y
x 


Observe that Pauli matrices transform a qubit state as
follows
Operators and represent therefore a bit error, a sign error and a
bit-sign error.
1
|
0
|
| b

f 

1
|
0
|
)
1
|
0
|
( 
b
b

 


x
1
|
0
|
)
1
|
0
|
( b

b

 


z
1
|
0
|
)
1
|
0
|
( 
b
b

 


y
z
x 
 , y


17
QUANTUM (PROJECTION) MEASUREMENTS
A quantum state is always observed (measured) with respect to an observable O - a
decomposition of a given Hilbert space into orthogonal subspaces (where each vector can be
uniquely represented as a sum of vectors of these subspaces).
There are two outcomes of a projection measurement of a state |f with respect to O:
1. Classical information into which subspace projection of |f was made.
2. Resulting quantum projection (as a new state) |f  in one of the above subspaces.
The subspace into which projection is made is chosen randomly and the corresponding
probability is uniquely determined by the amplitudes at the representation of |f as a sum of
states of the subspaces.
IV054

18
In case an orthonormal basis is chosen in n, any state
can be expressed in the form
where
are called probability amplitudes
and
their squares provide probabilities
that if the state is measured with respect to the basis , then the
state collapses into the state with probability .
The classical “outcome” of a measurement of the state with respect to
the basis is the index i of that state into which the state
collapses.
QUANTUM STATES and PROJECTION MEASUREMENT
n
i
i 1
}
{ 
b n
H

f
|

 



n
i
i
n
i
i
i a
a
1
2
1
1
|
|
,
|
| b
f
f
b |
i
i
a 
f
| n
i
i 1
}
{ 
b
f
| i
b
| 2
|
| i
a
f
|
n
i
i }
{β 1
 i
b
|

19
QUBITS
A qubit is a quantum state in H2
|f = |0 + b|1
where , b C are such that ||2 + |b|2 = 1 and
{ |0 |1 } is a (standard) basis of H2
IV054
EXAMPLE: Representation of qubits by
(a) electron in a Hydrogen atom
(b) a spin-1/2 particle
Figure 5: Qubit representations by energy levels of an electron in a hydrogen atom and by a spin-1/2
particle. The condition ||2 + |b|2 = 1 is a legal one if ||2 and |b|2 are to be the probabilities of being in one of
two basis states (of electrons or photons).

20
HILBERT SPACE H2
STANDARD BASIS DUAL BASIS
|0 |1 |0’ |1’
Hadamard matrix
H |0 = |0’ H |0’ = |0
H |1 = |1’ H |1’ = |1 
transforms one of the basis into another one.
General form of a unitary matrix of degree 2
IV054

































2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
1










1
1
1
1
2
1
H
























 
 b
b







i
i
i
i
i
e
e
i
i
e
e
e
U
0
0
cos
sin
sin
cos
0
0

21
QUANTUM MEASUREMENT
of a qubit state
A qubit state can “contain” unboundly large amount of classical information.
However, an unknown quantum state cannot be identified.
By a measurement of the qubit state
|0 + b|1
with respect to the basis {|0 |1 
we can obtain only classical information and only in the following random way:
0 with probability ||2 1 with probability |b|2
IV054

22
A probability distribution on pure states is called a mixed
state to which it is assigned a density operator
One interpretation of a mixed state is that a source X
produces the state with probability pi .
MIXED STATES – DENSITY MATRICES
.
|
|
1
i
i
n
i
i
p f
f
 


Any matrix representing a density operator is called density matrix.
Density matrices are exactly Hermitian, positive matrices with trace 1.
To two different mixed states can correspond the same density matrix.
Two mixes states with the same density matrix are physically undistinguishable.
k
i
i
i
p 1
)}
|
,
{( 
f
k
i
i
i
p 1
)}
|
,
{( 
f
i
f
|

23
To the maximally mixed state
Which represents a random bit corresponds the density matrix
MAXIMALLY MIXED STATES
Surprisingly, many other mixed states have density matrix that is the same as
that of the maximally mixed state.
)
1
|
,
2
1
(
),
0
|
,
2
1
(
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
)
1
,
0
(
1
0
2
1
)
0
,
1
(
0
1
2
1
I




























24
CLASSICAL ONE-TIME PAD cryptosystem
plaintext: an n-bit string c
shared key: an n-bit string c
cryptotext: an n-bit string c
encoding:
decoding:
QUANTUM ONE-TIME PAD CRYPTOSYSTEM
QUANTUM ONE-TIME PAD cryptosystem
plaintext: an n-qubit string
shared key: two n-bit strings k,k’
cryptotext: an n-qubit string
encoding:
decoding:
where and are qubits and with are
Pauli matrices
n
p
p
p |
...
|
| 1

n
c
c
c |
...
|
| 1

i
k
z
k
x
i p
c i
i
|
|
'



i
k
z
k
x
i c
p i
i
|
|
'












i
i
i
b
a
p
| 








i
i
i
e
d
c
| 








0
1
1
0
x
 









1
0
0
1
z

k
c
p 

k
p
c 


25
In the case of encryption of a qubit
by QUANTUM ONE-TIME PAD cryptosystem, what is being transmitted is the
mixed state
whose density matrix is
UNCONDITIONAL SECURITY of QUANTUM ONE-TIME PAD
.
2
1
2
I
1
|
0
|
| b

f 

)
|
,
4
1
(
),
|
,
4
1
(
),
|
,
4
1
(
),
|
,
4
1
( f


f

f

f z
x
z
x
This density matrix is identical to the density matrix corresponding to that of a
random bit, that is to the mixed state
)
1
|
,
2
1
(
),
0
|
,
2
1
(

26
Shannon classical encryption theorem says that n bits are
necessary and sufficient to encrypt securely n bits.
Quantum version of Shannon encryption theorem says that
2n classical bits are necessary and sufficient to encrypt
securely n qubits.
SHANNON’s THEOREMS

27
Tensor product of vectors
Tensor product of matrices
where
COMPOSED QUANTUM SYSTEMS (1)
)
,...,
,...,
,...,
,
,...,
(
)
,...,
(
)
,...,
( 1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1 m
n
n
m
m
m
n y
x
y
x
y
x
y
x
y
x
y
x
y
y
x
x 













B
a
B
a
B
a
B
a
B
A
nn
n
n
...
...
1
1
11













nn
n
n
a
a
a
a
A
...
...
1
1
11


Example
































22
21
12
11
22
21
12
11
22
21
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
































22
21
22
21
12
11
12
11
22
21
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

28
Tensor product of Hilbert spaces is the complex vector space
spanned by tensor products of vectors from H1 and H2 . That corresponds to
the quantum system composed of the quantum systems corresponding to
Hilbert spaces H1 and H2.
An important difference between classical and quantum systems
A state of a compound classical (quantum) system can be (cannot be) always
composed from the states of the subsystem.
COMPOSED QUANTUM SYSTEMS (2)
2
1 H
H 

29
QUANTUM REGISTERS
A general state of a 2-qubit register is:
|f = 00|00 + 01|01 + 10|10 + 11|11
where
|00 2 + |01 2 + |10 2 + |11 2 = 1
and |00  |01  |10  |11 are vectors of the “standard” basis of H4, i.e.
An important unitary matrix of degree 4, to transform states of 2-qubit registers:
It holds:
CNOT : |x, y|x, x  y
IV054




























































1
0
0
0
11
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
1
0
01
0
0
0
1
00
















1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
XOR
CNOT

30
QUANTUM MEASUREMENT
of the states of 2-qubit registers
|f = 00|00 + 01|01 + 10|10 + 11|11
1. Measurement with respect to the basis { |00  |01 |10  |11 
RESULTS:
|00> and 00 with probability |00|2
IV054
2. Measurement of particular qubits:
By measuring the first qubit we get
0 with probability |00|2 + |01|2
and |f is reduced to the vector
1 with probability |10|2 + |11|2
and |f is reduced to the vector
2
01
2
00
01
00 01
00






2
11
2
10
11
10 11
10







31
NO-CLONING THEOREM
INFORMAL VERSION: Unknown quantum state cannot be cloned.
IV054
FORMAL VERSION: There is no unitary transformation U such that for any qubit
state |y
U (|y |0 ) = |y |y
PROOF: Assume U exists and for two different states | and |b
U (| |0 ) = | | U (|b |0 ) = |b |b
Let
Then
However, CNOT can make copies of basis states |0 , |1 :
CNOT (|x |0 ) = |x |x
 
b

 

2
1
     

b
b

b
b




b
b


 






2
1
2
1
0
U

32
BELL STATES
States
form an orthogonal (Bell) basis in H4 and play an important role in
quantum computing.
Theoretically, there is an observable for this basis. However, no one
has been able to construct a measuring device for Bell measurement
using linear elements only.
IV054
   
   
10
01
2
1
,
10
01
2
1
11
00
2
1
,
11
00
2
1

















33
QUANTUM n-qubit REGISTER
A general state of an n-qubit register has the form:
and |f is a vector in H2^n.
Operators on n-qubits registers are unitary matrices of degree 2n.
Is it difficult to create a state of an n-qubit register?
In general yes, in some important special cases not. For example, if n-qubit Hadamard
transformation
is used then
and, in general, for x  {0,1}n
1The dot product is defined as follows:
IV054
 
1
where
,
1
2
0
2
1
,
0
1
2
0


 







n
n
n
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i 


f
.
1 H
H n
i
n 


   
 






 






n
n
x
n
i
n
n
n
i
n
i
n
n x
i
H
H
1
,
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
'
0
'
0
0
0
 
 
(1)
.
1
2
1
1
,
0
1
.




n
y
y
x
n
n y
x
H
.
1 i
i
n
i y
x
y
x 




34
QUANTUM PARALLELISM
If
f : {0, 1,…,2n -1}  {0, 1,…,2n -1}
then the mapping
f ‘ :(x, 0)  (x, f(x))
is one-to-one and therefore there is a unitary transformation Uf such that.
Uf (|x |0 )  |x |f(x)
Let us have the state
With a single application of the mapping Uf we then get
OBSERVE THAT IN A SINGLE COMPUTATIONAL STEP 2n VALUES
OF f ARE COMPUTED!
IV054




1
2
0
0
2
1
n
i
n
i
y
 




1
2
0
2
1
n
i
n
f i
f
i
U y

35
IN WHAT LIES POWER OF QUANTUM COMPUTING?
In quantum superposition or in quantum parallelism?
NOT,
in QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT!
Let
be a state of two very distant particles, for example on two planets
Measurement of one of the particles, with respect to the standard basis, makes
the above state to collapse to one of the states
|00> or |11>.
This means that subsequent measurement of other particle (on another planet)
provides the same result as the measurement of the first particle. This indicate
that in quantum world non-local influences, correlations, exist.
IV054
 
11
00
2
1


y

36
POWER of ENTANGLEMENT
Quantum state |Ψ> of a composed bipartite quantum system A  B is
called entangled if it cannot be decomposed into tensor product of
the states from A and B.
Quantum entanglement is an important quantum resource that allows
• To create phenomena that are impossible in the classical world (for
example teleportation)
• To create quantum algorithms that are asymptotically more efficient
than any classical algorithm known for the same problem.
• To create communication protocols that are asymptotically more
efficient than classical communication protocols for the same task
• To create, for two parties, shared secret binary keys
• To increase capacity of quantum channels

37
CLASSICAL versus QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY
• Security of classical cryptography is based on unproven assumptions
of computational complexity (and it can be jeopardize by progress in
algorithms and/or technology).
Security of quantum cryptography is based on laws of quantum
physics that allow to build systems where undetectable eavesdropping
is impossible.
IV054
• Since classical cryptography is volnurable to technological
improvements it has to be designed in such a way that a secret is
secure with respect to future technology, during the whole period in
which the secrecy is required.
Quantum key generation, on the other hand, needs to be designed
only to be secure against technology available at the moment of key
generation.

38
QUANTUM KEY GENERATION
Quantum protocols for using quantum systems to achieve unconditionally
secure generation of secret (classical) keys by two parties are one of the main
theoretical achievements of quantum information processing and
communication research.
Moreover, experimental systems for implementing such protocols are one of
the main achievements of experimental quantum information processing
research.
It is believed and hoped that it will be
quantum key generation (QKG)
another term is
quantum key distribution (QKD)
where one can expect the first
transfer from the experimental to the development stage.
IV054

39
QUANTUM KEY GENERATION - EPR METHOD
Let Alice and Bob share n pairs of particles in the entangled EPR-state.
If both of them measure their particles in the standard basis, then they get, as
the classical outcome of their measurements the same random, shared and
secret binary key of length n.
IV054
 .
11
00
2
1


40
POLARIZATION of PHOTONS
Polarized photons are currently mainly used for experimental quantum key
generation.
Photon, or light quantum, is a particle composing light and other forms of
electromagnetic radiation.
Photons are electromagnetic waves and their electric and magnetic fields are
perpendicular to the direction of propagation and also to each other.
An important property of photons is polarization - it refers to the bias of the electric
field in the electromagnetic field of the photon.
Figure 6: Electric and magnetic fields of a linearly polarized photon
IV054

41
Figure 6: Electric and magnetic fields of a linearly polarized photon
If the electric field vector is always parallel to a fixed line we have linear
polarization (see Figure).
IV054

42
There is no way to determine exactly polarization of a single photon.
However, for any angle  there are -polarizers – “filters” - that produce -
polarized photons from an incoming stream of photons and they let 1-polarized
photons to get through with probability cos2( - 1).
Figure 6: Photon polarizers and measuring devices-80%
Photons whose electronic fields oscillate in a plane at either 0O or 90O to some
reference line are called usually rectilinearly polarized and those whose electric
field oscillates in a plane at 45O or 135O as diagonally polarized. Polarizers that
produce only vertically or horizontally polarized photons are depicted in Figure 6
a, b.
IV054

43
Generation of orthogonally polarized photons.
Figure 6: Photon polarizers and measuring devices-80%
For any two orthogonal polarizations there are generators that produce photons of
two given orthogonal polarizations. For example, a calcite crystal, properly
oriented, can do the job.
Fig. c - a calcite crystal that makes -polarized photons to be horizontally
(vertically) polarized with probability cos2  (sin2 ).
Fig. d - a calcite crystal can be used to separate horizontally and vertically
polarized photons.
IV054

44
QUANTUM KEY GENERATION - PROLOGUE
Very basic setting Alice tries to send a quantum system to Bob and an
eavesdropper tries to learn, or to change, as much as possible, without being
detected.
Eavesdroppers have this time especially hard time, because quantum states
cannot be copied and cannot be measured without causing, in general, a
disturbance.
Key problem: Alice prepares a quantum system in a specific way, unknown to the
eavesdropper, Eve, and sends it to Bob.
The question is how much information can Eve extract of that quantum system
and how much it costs in terms of the disturbance of the system.
Three special cases
1. Eve has no information about the state |y Alice sends.
2. Eve knows that |y is one of the states of an orthonormal basis {|fi }n
i=1.
3. Eve knows that |y is one of the states |f1 ,…, |fn that are not mutually
orthonormal and that pi is the probability that |y = |fi .
IV054

45
TRANSMISSION ERRORS
If Alice sends randomly chosen bit
0 encoded randomly as |0 or |0'
or
1 encoded as randomly as |1 or $|1'
and Bob measures the encoded bit by choosing randomly the standard or the dual
basis, then the probability of error is ¼=2/8
If Eve measures the encoded bit, sent by Alice, according to the randomly chosen
basis, standard or dual, then she can learn the bit sent with the probability 75% .
If she then sends the state obtained after the measurement to Bob and he
measures it with respect to the standard or dual basis, randomly chosen, then the
probability of error for his measurement is 3/8 - a 50% increase with respect to the
case there was no eavesdropping.
Indeed the error is
IV054
8
3
4
3
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
1













46
BB84 QUANTUM KEY GENERATION PROTOCOL
Quantum key generation protocol BB84 (due to Bennett and Brassard), for
generation of a key of length n, has several phases:
Preparation phase
IV054
Alice is assumed to have four transmitters of photons in one of the following four
polarizations 0, 45, 90 and 135 degrees
Figure 8: Polarizations of photons for BB84 and B92 protocols
Expressed in a more general form, Alice uses for encoding states from the set
{|0 , |1 ,|0' , |1' }.
Bob has a detector that can be set up to distinguish between rectilinear
polarizations (0 and 90 degrees) or can be quickly reset to distinguish between
diagonal polarizations (45 and 135 degrees).

47
(In accordance with the laws of quantum physics, there is no detector that could
distinguish between unorthogonal polarizations.)
(In a more formal setting, Bob can measure the incomming photons either in the
standard basis B = {|0 ,|1 } or in the dual basis D = {|0' , |1' }.
To send a bit 0 (1) of her first random sequence through a quantum channel Alice
chooses, on the basis of her second random sequence, one of the encodings |0
or |0' (|1 or |1' ), i.e., in the standard or dual basis,
Bob chooses, each time on the base of his private random sequence, one of the
bases B or D to measure the photon he is to receive and he records the results of
his measurements and keeps them secret.
Figure 9: Quantum cryptography with BB84 protocol
Figure 9 shows the possible results of the measurements and their probabilities.
IV054
Alice’s Bob’s Alice’s state The result Correctness
encodings observables relative to Bob and its probability
0 |0 0 B |0 0 (prob. 1) correct
1 D 1/sqrt2 (|0' |1'  0/1 (prob. ½) random
0 |0' 0 B 1/sqrt2 (|0 |1  0/1 (prob. ½) random
1 D |0' 0 (prob. 1) correct
1 |1 0 B |1 1 (prob. 1) correct
1 D 1/sqrt2 (|0'  |1'  0/1 (prob. ½) random
1 |1' 0 B 1/sqrt2 (|0  |1  0/1 (prob. ½) random
1 D |1' 1 (prob. 1) correct

48
An example of an encoding - decoding process is in the Figure 10.
Raw key extraction
Bob makes public the sequence of bases he used to measure the photons he
received - but not the results of the measurements - and Alice tells Bob, through a
classical channel, in which cases he has chosen the same basis for measurement
as she did for encoding. The corresponding bits then form the basic raw key.
Figure 10: Quantum transmissions in the BB84 protocol - R stands for the case that the result of the measurement is
random.
IV054
1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Alice’s random sequence
|1 |0' |0 |0' |1 |1' |0' |0 |0 |1 |1' Alice’s polarizations
0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Bob’s random sequence
B D D D B B D B B D B Bob’s observable
1 0 R 0 1 R 0 0 0 R R outcomes

49
Test for eavesdropping
Alice and Bob agree on a sequence of indices of the raw key and make the
corresponding bits of their raw keys public.
Case 1. Noiseless channel. If the subsequences chosen by Alice and Bob are not
completely identical eavesdropping is detected. Otherwise, the remaining bits are
taken as creating the final key.
Case 2. Noisy channel. If the subsequences chosen by Alice and Bob contains
more errors than the admitable error of the channel (that has to be determined from
channel characteristics), then eavesdropping is assumed. Otherwise, the remaining
bits are taken as the next result of the raw key generation process.
IV054
Error correction phase
In the case of a noisy channel for transmission it may happen that Alice and Bob
have different raw keys after the key generation phase.
A way out is to use qa special error correction techniques and at the end of this
stage both Alice and Bob share identical keys.

50
Privacy amplification phase
One problem remains. Eve can still have quite a bit of information about the key
both Alice and Bob share. Privacy amplification is a tool to deal with such a case.
Privacy amplification is a method how to select a short and very secret binary
string s from a longer but less secret string s'. The main idea is simple. If |s| = n,
then one picks up n random subsets S1,…, Sn of bits of s' and let si, the i-th bit of S,
be the parity of Si. One way to do it is to take a random binary matrix of size
|s|  |s'| and to perform multiplication Ms'T, where s'T is the binary column vector
corresponding to s'.
The point is that even in the case where an eavesdropper knows quite a few bits of
s', she will have almost no information about s.
More exactly, if Eve knows parity bits of k subsets of s', then if a random subset of
bits of s' is chosen, then the probability that Eve has any information about its
parity bit is less than 2 - (n - k - 1) / ln 2.
IV054

51
EXPERIMENTAL CRYPTOGRAPHY
Successes
1. Transmissions using optical fibers to the distance of 120 km.
2. Open air transmissions to the distance 144 km at day time (from
one pick of Canary Islands to another).
3. Next goal: earth to satellite transmissions.
IV054
All current systems use optical means for quantum state transmissions
Problems and tasks
1. No single photon sources are available. Weak laser pulses currently
used contains in average 0.1 - 0.2 photons.
2. Loss of signals in the fiber. (Current error rates: 0,5 - 4%)
3. To move from the experimental to the developmental stage.

52
QUANTUM TELEPORTATION
Quantum teleportation allows to transmit unknown quantum information to a very
distant place in spite of impossibility to measure or to broadcast information to be
transmitted.
Total state
Measurement of the first two qubits is done with respect to the “Bell basis”:
IV054
 
111
100
011
000
2
1
b
b


y 



 pair
EPR
 
11
00
2
1
1
0 



 pair
EPR
b

y
   
   
10
01
2
1
10
01
2
1
11
00
2
1
11
00
2
1

















53
QUANTUM TELEPORTATION I
Total state of three particles:
can be expressed as follows:
and therefore Bell measurement of the first two particles projects the state of Bob's
particle into a “small modification” |y1 of the state |y= |0b|1
|1> = either |> or σx|> or z|> or xz|y>
The unknown state |y can therefore be obtained from |y1 by applying one of the
four operations
x, y, z, I
and the result of the Bell measurement provides two bits specifying which
of the above four operations should be applied.
These four bits Alice needs to send to Bob using a classical channel (by email, for
example).
IV054
 
111
100
011
000
2
1
b
b


y 



 pair
EPR
   
   
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1

b
b


b
b

y


















pair
EPR

54
QUANTUM TELEPORTATION II
If the first two particles of the state
are measured with respect to the Bell basis then Bob's particle gets into the mixed
state
to which corresponds the density matrix
The resulting density matrix is identical to the density matrix for the mixed state
Indeed, the density matrix for the last mixed state has the form
IV054
   
   
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1

b
b


b
b

y


















pair
EPR






























 1
0
,
4
1
1
0
,
4
1
1
0
,
4
1
1
0
,
4
1

b

b
b

b

            .
2
1
,
4
1
,
4
1
,
4
1
,
4
1 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
* I





 


b

b
b

b
 b

b


b

b













1
,
2
1
0
,
2
1
      .
2
1
1
,
0
2
1
0
,
1
2
1 0
1
1
0 I



55
QUANTUM TELEPORTATION - COMMENTS
• Alice can be seen as dividing information contained in |y into
quantum information - transmitted through EPR channel
classical information - transmitted through a classical cahnnel
IV054
• In a quantum teleportation an unknown quantum state |f can be disambled into,
and later reconstructed from, two classical bit-states and an maximally entangled
pure quantum state.
• Using quantum teleportation an unknown quantum state can be teleported from
one place to another by a sender who does not need to know - for teleportation
itself - neither the state to be teleported nor the location of the intended receiver.
• The teleportation procedure can not be used to transmit information faster than
light
but
it can be argued that quantum information presented in unknown state is
transmitted instanteneously (except two random bits to be transmitted at the speed
of light at most).
• EPR channel is irreversibly destroyed during the teleportation process.

56
•In Cambridge connecting Harward, Boston Uni, and BBN Technology (10,19
and 29 km).
•Currently 6 nodes, in near future 10 nodes.
•Continuously operating since March 2004
•Three technologies: lasers through optic fibers, entanglement through fiber
and free-space QKD (in future two versions of it).
•Implementation of BB84 with authentication, sifting error correction and
privacy amplification.
•One 2x2 switch to make sender-receiver connections
•Capability to overcome several limitations of stand-alone QKD systems.
DARPA Network

57
•QIPC is believed to lead to new Quantum Information Processing
Technology that could have broad impacts.
• Several areas of science and technology are approaching such points
in their development where they badly need expertise with storing,
transmision and processing of particles.
•It is increasingly believed that new, quantum information processing
based, understanding of (complex) quantum phenomena and systems
can be developed.
•Quantum cryptography seems to offer new level of security and be
soon feasible.
•QIPC has been shown to be more efficient in interesting/important
cases.
WHY IS QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING SO IMPORTANT

58
The main task at quantum computation is to express solution of a given
problem P as a unitary matrix U and then to construct a circuit CU with
elementary quantum gates from a universal sets of quantum gates to realize
U.
UNIVERSAL SETS of QUANTUM GATES

































 i
z
e
H
CNOT
4
4
1
0
0
1
,
1
1
1
1
2
1
,
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1


A simple universal set of quantum gates consists of gates.

59
The first really satisfactory results, concerning universality of gates, have been
due ti Barenco et al. (1995)
Theorem 0.1 CNOT gate and all one-qubit gates from a universal set of gates.
The proof is in principle a simple modification of the RQ-decomposition from
linear algebra. Theorem 0.1 can be easily improved:
Theorem 0.2 CNOT gate and elementary rotation gates
for
form a universal set of gates.
FUNDAMENTAL RESULTS
  
 



2
sin
2
cos i
I
R 
  
z
y
x ,
,



60
Quantum algorithms are methods of using quantum circuits and processors to
solve algorithmic problems.
On a more technical level, a design of a quantum algorithm can be seen as a
process of an efficient decomposition of a complex unitary transformation into
products of elementary unitary operations (or gates), performing simple local
changes.
QUANTUM ALGORITHMS
The four main features of quantum mechanics that are exploited in quantum
computation:
•Superposition;
•Interference;
•Entanglement;
•Measurement.

61
EXAMPLES of QUANTUM ALGORITHMS
Deutsch problem: Given is a black-box function f: {0,1} {0,1}, how many
queries are needed to find out whether f is constant or balanced:
Classically: 2
Quantumly: 1
Deutsch-Jozsa Problem: Given is a black-box function and a
promise that f is either constant or balanced, how many querries are needed to
find out whether f is constant or balanced.
Classically: n
Quantumly 1
Factorization of integers: all classical algorithms are exponential.
Peter Shor developed polynomial time quantum algorithm
Search of an element in an unordered database of n elements:
Clasically n queries are needed in the worst case
Lov Grover showen that quantumly queries are enough

}
1
,
0
{
}
1
,
0
{
: 
n
f
n

CRYPTO0914.ppt

More Related Content

Similar to CRYPTO0914.ppt (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

CRYPTO0914.ppt