On Jan 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Noon Silk wrote: > I think it's important to note that it's obviously completely wrong to > say "QKD is snake-oil",
Some of us would disagree with that statement. Historically in the U.S., snake oil was something that promised a benefit over other remedies. QKD says it is "more secure" than current key establishment systems, however it is only practical in a very limited number of environments where those other key establishment systems would be just as secure. > what you *can* say is that someone *selling* > *any* demonstratably-insecure crypto device as a secure one, is snake > oil. So, that is to say, you can only claim snake-oil in reference to > a vendor and a device, not a field of research. Again, we disagree. There are many fields of research that market themselves as useful when compared to other fields, and QKD is one of those. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
