Practical private database queries based on a quantum key distribution protocol

Private queries allow a user Alice to learn an element of a database held by a provider Bob without revealing which element she was interested in, while limiting her information about the other elements. We propose to implement private queries based on a quantum key distribution protocol, with changes only in the classical post-processing of the key. This approach makes our scheme both easy to implement and loss-tolerant. While unconditionally secure private queries are known to be impossible, we argue that an interesting degree of security can be achieved, relying on fundamental physical principles instead of unverifiable security assumptions in order to protect both user and database. We think that there is scope for such practical private queries to become another remarkable application of quantum information in the footsteps of quantum key distribution.Comment: 7 pages, 2 figures, new and improved version, clarified claims, expanded security discussio

Improved and Formal Proposal for Device Independent Quantum Private Query

In this paper, we propose a novel Quantum Private Query (QPQ) scheme with full Device-Independent certification. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time we provide such a full DI-QPQ scheme using EPR-pairs. Our proposed scheme exploits self-testing of shared EPR-pairs along with the self-testing of projective measurement operators in a setting where the client and the server do not trust each other. To certify full device independence, we exploit a strategy to self-test a particular class of POVM elements that are used in the protocol. Further, we provide formal security analysis and obtain an upper bound on the maximum cheating probabilities for both the dishonest client as well as the dishonest server.Comment: 33 pages, 2 figure

Towards practical quantum position verification

We discuss protocols for quantum position verification schemes based on the standard quantum cryptographic assumption that a tagging device can keep classical data secure [Kent, 2011]. Our schemes use a classical key replenished by quantum key distribution. The position verification requires no quantum communication or quantum information processing. The security of classical data makes the schemes secure against non-local spoofing attacks that apply to schemes that do not use secure tags. The schemes are practical with current technology and allow for errors and losses. We describe how a proof-of-principle demonstration might be carried out

Quantum cryptography: key distribution and beyond

Uniquely among the sciences, quantum cryptography has driven both foundational research as well as practical real-life applications. We review the progress of quantum cryptography in the last decade, covering quantum key distribution and other applications.Comment: It's a review on quantum cryptography and it is not restricted to QK

ETSI GS QKD 016 V1.1.1 - Quantum Key Distribution (QKD); Common Criteria Protection Profile - Pair of Prepare and Measure Quantum Key Distribution Modules

The present document specifies a Protection Profile (PP) for the security evaluation of pairs of Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) modules under the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CC v3.1 rev5). The present document is applicable to a pair of QKD modules operating a prepare and measure QKD protocol that can form a complete QKD system when connected by an appropriate point-to-point QKD link. The PP specifies high-level requirements for the physical implementation through to the output of final secret keys

The art of post-truth in quantum cryptography

L’établissement de clé quantique (abrégé QKD en anglais) permet à deux participants distants, Alice et Bob, d’établir une clé secrète commune (mais aléatoire) qui est connue uniquement de ces deux personnes (c’est-à-dire inconnue d’Ève et de tout autre tiers parti). La clé secrète partagée est inconditionnellement privée et peut être plus tard utilisée, par Alice et Bob, pour transmettre des messages en toute confidentialité, par exemple sous la forme d’un masque jetable. Le protocole d’établissement de clé quantique garantit la confidentialité inconditionnelle du message en présence d’un adversaire (Ève) limité uniquement par les lois de la mécanique quantique, et qui ne peut agir sur l’information que se partagent Alice et Bob que lors de son transit à travers des canaux classiques et quantiques. Mais que se passe-t-il lorsque Ève a le pouvoir supplémentaire de contraindre Alice et/ou Bob à révéler toute information, jusqu’alors gardée secrète, générée lors de l’exécution (réussie) du protocole d’établissement de clé quantique (éventuellement suite à la transmission entre Alice et Bob d’un ou plusieurs messages chiffrés classique à l’aide de cette clé), de manière à ce qu’Ève puisse reproduire l’entièreté du protocole et retrouver la clé (et donc aussi le message qu’elle a chiffré) ? Alice et Bob peuvent-ils nier la création de la clé de manière plausible en révélant des informations mensongères pour qu’Ève aboutisse sur une fausse clé ? Les protocoles d’établissement de clé quantiques peuvent-ils tels quels garantir la possibilité du doute raisonnable ? Dans cette thèse, c’est sur cette énigme que nous nous penchons. Dans le reste de ce document, nous empruntons le point de vue de la théorie de l’information pour analyser la possibilité du doute raisonnable lors de l’application de protocoles d’établissement de clé quantiques. Nous formalisons rigoureusement différents types et degrés de doute raisonnable en fonction de quel participant est contraint de révéler la clé, de ce que l’adversaire peut demander, de la taille de l’ensemble de fausses clés qu’Alice et Bob peuvent prétendre établir, de quand les parties doivent décider de la ou des clés fictives, de quelle est la tolérance d’Ève aux événements moins probables, et du recours ou non à des hypothèses de calcul. Nous définissons ensuite rigoureusement une classe générale de protocoles d’établissement de clé quantiques, basée sur un canal quantique presque parfait, et prouvons que tout protocole d’établissement de clé quantique appartenant à cette classe satisfait la définition la plus générale de doute raisonnable : à savoir, le doute raisonnable universel. Nous en fournissons quelques exemples. Ensuite, nous proposons un protocole hybride selon lequel tout protocole QKD peut être au plus existentiellement déniable. De plus, nous définissons une vaste classe de protocoles d’établissement de clé quantiques, que nous appelons préparation et mesure, et prouvons l’impossibilité d’instiller lors de ceux-ci tout degré de doute raisonnable. Ensuite, nous proposons une variante du protocole, que nous appelons préparation et mesure floues qui offre un certain niveau de doute raisonnable lorsque Ève est juste. Par la suite, nous proposons un protocole hybride en vertu duquel tout protocole d’établissement de clé quantique ne peut offrir au mieux que l’option de doute raisonnable existentiel. Finalement, nous proposons une variante du protocole, que nous appelons mono-déniable qui est seulement Alice déniable ou Bob déniable (mais pas les deux).Quantum Key Establishment (QKD) enables two distant parties Alice and Bob to establish a common random secret key known only to the two of them (i.e., unknown to Eve and anyone else). The common secret key is information-theoretically secure. Later, Alice and Bob may use this key to transmit messages securely, for example as a one-time pad. The QKD protocol guarantees the confidentiality of the key from an information-theoretic perspective against an adversary Eve who is only limited by the laws of quantum theory and can act only on the signals as they pass through the classical and quantum channels. But what if Eve has the extra power to coerce Alice and/or Bob after the successful execution of the QKD protocol forcing either both or only one of them to reveal all their private information (possibly also after one or several (classical) ciphertexts encrypted with that key have been transmitted between Alice and Bob) then Eve could go through the protocol and obtain the key (hence also the message)? Can Alice and Bob deny establishment of the key plausibly by revealing fake private information and hence also a fake key? Do QKD protocols guarantee deniability for free in this case? In this Thesis, we investigate this conundrum. In the rest of this document, we take an information-theoretic perspective on deniability in quantum key establishment protocols. We rigorously formalize different levels and flavours of deniability depending on which party is coerced, what the adversary may ask, what is the size of the fake set that surreptitious parties can pretend to be established, when the parties should decide on the fake key(s), and what is the coercer’s tolerance to less likely events and possibly also computational assumptions. We then rigorously define a general class of QKD protocols, based on an almost-perfect quantum channel, and prove that any QKD protocol that belongs to this class satisfies the most general flavour of deniability, i.e.,universal deniability. Moreover, we define a broad class of QKD protocols, which we call prepare-and-measure, and prove that these protocols are not deniable in any level or flavour. Moreover, we define a class of QKD protocols, which we refer to as fuzzy prepare-andmeasure, that provides a certain level of deniability conditioned on Eve being fair. Furthermore, we propose a hybrid protocol under which any QKD protocol can be at most existentially deniable. Finally, we define a class of QKD protocols, which we refer to as mono-deniable, which is either Alice or Bob (but not both) deniable