Introduction to Quantum Key Distribution

Transcription

1 Fakultät für Physik Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München January 2010

2 Overview Introduction Security Proof

3 Introduction What is information? A mathematical concept describing knowledge. Basic unit is the bit 0 / 1. A physical concept 0 ˆ= and 1 ˆ=

4 Introduction What is information? A mathematical concept describing knowledge. Basic unit is the bit 0 / 1. A physical concept 0 ˆ= and 1 ˆ= The world is not made up of light switches, the world is made up of atoms and photons Atoms and photons are described by quantum mechanics The spin of an atom describes the information we have about it

5 Introduction spin- 1 2 system: points on the sphere unit of information is the quantum bit or qubit

6 Introduction spin- 1 2 system: points on the sphere unit of information is the quantum bit or qubit we can manipulate and transmit qubits ion trap optical fibre

7 Introduction Quantum Information Science Quantum Computation Shor s Factoring Algorithm Quantum Information Theory Quantum Communication Entanglement Quantum Cryptography Online Games Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Bell Inequalities

8 Alice und Bob want to communicate in secrecy, but their phone is tapped. Eve Alice phone Bob

9 Alice und Bob want to communicate in secrecy, but their phone is tapped. Eve Alice phone Bob If they share key (string of secret random numbers), Alice Eve Bob message +key cipher cipher - key message cipher is random and message secure (Vernam, 1926)

10 Alice und Bob want to communicate in secrecy, but their phone is tapped. Eve Alice phone Bob If they share key (string of secret random numbers), Alice Eve Bob cipher is random and message secure (Vernam, 1926)

11 key is as long as the message Shannon (1949): this is optimal secret communication ˆ= key distribution

12 key is as long as the message Shannon (1949): this is optimal secret communication ˆ= key distribution possible key distribution schemes:

13 key is as long as the message Shannon (1949): this is optimal secret communication ˆ= key distribution possible key distribution schemes: Alice and Bob meet impractical

14 key is as long as the message Shannon (1949): this is optimal secret communication ˆ= key distribution possible key distribution schemes: Alice and Bob meet impractical Weaker level of security assumptions on speed of Eve s computer (public key cryptography) assumptions on size of Eve s harddrive (bounded storage model)

15 key is as long as the message Shannon (1949): this is optimal secret communication ˆ= key distribution possible key distribution schemes: Alice and Bob meet impractical Weaker level of security assumptions on speed of Eve s computer (public key cryptography) assumptions on size of Eve s harddrive (bounded storage model) Use quantum mechanical effects (Bennett & Brassard 1984, Ekert 1991)

16 prepare & measure (Wiesner 1970 s, Bennett & Brassard 1984) Eve Alice glass fibre phone Bob

17 prepare & measure (Wiesner 1970 s, Bennett & Brassard 1984) Eve Alice glass fibre phone Bob Security guaranteed by uncertainty principle Alice sends eigenstates of σ z or σ x. Bob measures observable σ z or σ x. They tell each other the observable, but not the result. They should obtain the same result when they used the same observable key If Eve measures in the wrong observable, they have an error with probability 1 2, since [σ z, σ x ] 0.

18 entanglement-based (Ekert 1991) Eve Alice glass fibre phone Bob

19 entanglement-based (Ekert 1991) Eve Alice glass fibre phone Bob Security guaranteed by monogamy of entanglement Alice and Bob check (Bell inequality): ψ ABE? = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) φ E. If YES: Eve does not know their measurement results. Results are random key If NO: they abort the protocol.

20 Entangled state of two qubits 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B )

21 Entangled state of two qubits 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) New basis + = 1 ( ) = 1 ( 0 1 ) 2 2 easy calculation 1 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) = 1 ( + A + B + A B ) 2 2

22 Entangled state of two qubits 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) New basis + = 1 ( ) = 1 ( 0 1 ) 2 2 easy calculation 1 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) = 1 ( + A + B + A B ) 2 2 If Alice and Bob measure observable σ z same result If Alice and Bob measure observable σ x same result

23 Entangled state of two qubits 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) New basis + = 1 ( ) = 1 ( 0 1 ) 2 2 easy calculation 1 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) = 1 ( + A + B + A B ) 2 2 If Alice and Bob measure observable σ z same result If Alice and Bob measure observable σ x same result Converse is true, too: same measurement result they have state 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) Alice and Bob can test whether or not they have the state 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B )!

24 Assume that Alice and Bob have the state φ AB = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) and measure in the same basis. Can someone else guess the result?

25 Assume that Alice and Bob have the state φ AB = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) and measure in the same basis. Can someone else guess the result? No! The measurement result is secure! Total state of Alice, Bob and Eve ψ ABE = φ AB φ E, because Alice and Bob have a pure state Eve is not at all correlated with Alice and Bob! Monogamy of entanglement Try: ψ ABE = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B 0 E + 1 A 1 B 1 E ) ρ AB = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B 1 A 1 B ) different from φ φ AB = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B 0 A 0 B + 0 A 0 B 1 A 1 B + 1 A 1 B 1 A 1 B )

26 The Protocol Distribution Eve 1 Alice glass fibre 1 1 Bob

27 The Protocol Distribution Eve Alice 1 2 glass fibre Bob

28 The Protocol Distribution Eve Alice 1 2 n Bob glass fibre 1 2 n 1 2 n

29 The Protocol Distribution Eve Alice 1 2 n Bob glass fibre 1 2 n 1 2 n Measurement with σ x or σ z

30 The Protocol Distribution Eve Alice 1 2 n Bob glass fibre 1 2 n 1 2 n Measurement with σ x or σ z Error-free? φ AB? = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) phone

31 The Protocol Distribution Eve Alice 1 2 n Bob glass fibre 1 2 n 1 2 n Measurement with σ x or σ z Error-free? φ AB? = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) phone If YES: key. If NO: no key

32 entanglement key key perfectly secure communication not possible with classical physics future (quantum) technology!

33 Security Proof The Protocol Distribution Eve Alice 1 2 n Bob glass fibre 1 2 n 1 2 n Measurement with σ x or σ z Error-free? φ AB? = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) phone If YES: key. If NO: no key

34 Security Proof Honest Eve would distribute Ψ n ABC = ψ n ABE bits are independent ψ ABE = φ AB φ E Eve knows nothing φ AB = 1 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) bits are random 2 Alice and Bob need to test whether Eve is honest or not.

35 Security Proof If Eve sends states of the form Ψ n ABC = ψ n ABE Alice and Bob test (on a subset): Are the pairs are of the form φ AB = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) i.e. is the data error-free? If YES, standard statistical analysis implies (almost) all remaining triples are of the form φ AB φ E resulting bits are (almost) identical and random Eve has (almost) no information about bits Alice and Bob perform error correction Alice and Bob delete a few random bits Eve has no information about remaining bits (privacy amplification) key If NO, abort the protocol

36 Security Proof The Protocol Distribution Ψ n ABC = ψ n ABE Measurement Alice Eve 1 2 n Bob 1 2 n 1 2 n compare subset Error Estimation φ AB? = 1 2 ( 0 A 0 B + 1 A 1 B ) NO: Abort protocol YES: error correction & privacy amplification

37 Security Proof Proof works as long as Ψ n ABC = ψ n ABE. Alice Bob But why should Eve prepare such a state? Why not the following? Alice Bob

38 Security Proof De Finetti Theorem (Diaconis and Freedman, 1980) Drawing balls from an urn with or without replacement results in almost the same probability distribution. If k are drawn out of n, then P k i p i Q k i 1 const k n.

39 Security Proof Quantum generalisations have been obtained by Størmer, Hudson & Moody, and Werner et al.. (n = ) Quantum De Finetti Theorem Ch., König, Mitchison, Renner, Comm. Math. Phys. 273, (2007) Let ρ n be a permutation-invariant state πρπ 1 = ρ, then ρ k i p i σ k i 1 const k n const = 4d 2 d dependence is necessary classically, k 2 /n bound exists

40 Security Proof Proof sketch reduce problem to the Bosonic case πρ = ρ, for all π S n ρ lives on Sym n (C d ) Sym k (C d ) Sym n k (C d ) measurement with SU(d) coherent states φ n = φ k φ n k post-measurement on k particles: ρ k post = µ(φ) φ φ k gentle measurement ρ k ρ k post (error k/n). generalises to arbitrary irreducible representations of SU(d).

41 Security Proof Alice and Bob select a random sample of pairs (after pairs have been distributed!) Alice Bob Alice Quantum de Finetti Bob can use proof from before (tensor product) proof of the security of!

42 Security Proof Closer look: deviation from perfect key (due to quantum de Finetti theorem) ɛ k/n n: number of pairs that Eve distributed k: number of bits of key

43 Security Proof Closer look: deviation from perfect key (due to quantum de Finetti theorem) ɛ k/n n: number of pairs that Eve distributed k: number of bits of key key rate r k/n ɛ 0 not good enough need replacement for de Finetti theorem Renner s exp. de Finetti theorem, involved, non-optimal

44 Security Proof Post-selection Technique Ch., König, Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, (2009) Idea: Compare actual protocol with an ideal protocol (which produces perfect key) Theorem about permutation-covariant maps, rather than permutation-invariant states.

45 Security Proof Post-selection Technique Ch., König, Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, (2009) Idea: Compare actual protocol with an ideal protocol (which produces perfect key) Theorem about permutation-covariant maps, rather than permutation-invariant states. In QKD: r k/n 1 δ and ɛ exp( δ 2 n) optimal parameters relevant in current experiments (since n 10 5 ) Eve s best attack Ψ n ABE = ψ ABE n conceptual and technical simplification of security proofs Other applications: Quantum Reverse Shannon Theorem Berta, Ch. and Renner, arxiv: