Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Cryptography Security Quantum Foundations

Comment on 'Improving the security of protocols of quantum key agreement solely using Bell states and Bell measurement'

arXiv
Authors: Jun Gu, Tzonelih Hwang

Year

2015

Paper ID

26457

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

99

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Designing a quantum key agreement (QKA) protocol is always a challenging task, because both the security and the fairness properties have to be considered simultaneously. Recently, Zhu et al. (Quantum Inf Process 14(11): 4245-4254) pointed out that Shukla et al.'s QKA protocol (Quantum Inf Process 13(11): 2391-2405) has some security flaws (which lead to the Participant Attack). Moreover, they proposed an improvement to avoid these weaknesses. However this study points out that the improved protocol also suffers from a colluding attack, i.e., two dishonest participants in the protocol can collaborate to manipulate the final secret key without being detected.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Designing a quantum key agreement (QKA) protocol is always a challenging task, because both the security and the fairness properties have to be considered simultaneously.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #26457 #78817 Modelling Josephson Junctions w... #78814 Construction of isoscattering n... #78811 Autonomous Code Migration for Q... #78808 Experimental generation of asym...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.