Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Cryptography Security

A quantum key distribution protocol for rapid denial of service detection

arXiv
Authors: Alasdair B. Price, John G. Rarity, Chris Erven

Year

2017

Paper ID

44685

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

110

Citations

0

Abstract

We introduce a quantum key distribution protocol designed to expose fake users that connect to Alice or Bob for the purpose of monopolising the link and denying service. It inherently resists attempts to exhaust Alice and Bob's initial shared secret, and is 100% efficient, regardless of the number of qubits exchanged above the finite key limit. Additionally, secure key can be generated from two-photon pulses, without having to make any extra modifications. This is made possible by relaxing the security of BB84 to that of the quantum-safe block cipher used for day-to-day encryption, meaning the overall security remains unaffected for useful real-world cryptosystems such as AES-GCM being keyed with quantum devices.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Cryptography & Security research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We introduce a quantum key distribution protocol designed to expose fake users that connect to Alice or Bob for the purpose of monopolising the link and denying service.

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 #44685

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal • updated 2026-06-13 09:32:41

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.