On the power of two-party quantum cryptography

We study quantum protocols among two distrustful parties. Under the sole assumption of correctness - guaranteeing that honest players obtain their correct outcomes - we show that every protocol implementing a non-trivial primitive necessarily leaks information to a dishonest player. This extends known impossibility results to all non-trivial primitives. We provide a framework for quantifying this leakage and argue that leakage is a good measure for the privacy provided to the players by a given protocol. Our framework also covers the case where the two players are helped by a trusted third party. We show that despite the help of a trusted third party, the players cannot amplify the cryptographic power of any primitive. All our results hold even against quantum honest-but-curious adversaries who honestly follow the protocol but purify their actions and apply a different measurement at the end of the protocol. As concrete examples, we establish lower bounds on the leakage of standard universal two-party primitives such as oblivious transfer

Quantum key distribution based on orthogonal states allows secure quantum bit commitment

For more than a decade, it was believed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment (QBC) is impossible. But basing on a previously proposed quantum key distribution scheme using orthogonal states, here we build a QBC protocol in which the density matrices of the quantum states encoding the commitment do not satisfy a crucial condition on which the no-go proofs of QBC are based. Thus the no-go proofs could be evaded. Our protocol is fault-tolerant and very feasible with currently available technology. It reopens the venue for other "post-cold-war" multi-party cryptographic protocols, e.g., quantum bit string commitment and quantum strong coin tossing with an arbitrarily small bias. This result also has a strong influence on the Clifton-Bub-Halvorson theorem which suggests that quantum theory could be characterized in terms of information-theoretic constraints.Comment: Published version plus an appendix showing how to defeat the counterfactual attack, more references [76,77,90,118-120] cited, and other minor change