On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > [BTW, I held off saying anything until the first post. I'd wanted to > see how long we could collectively avoid the same old QKD thread. It > took five hours to the first post, fourteen to get to the first > significant disagreement.] > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Noon Silk <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think it's important to note that it's obviously completely wrong to >> say "QKD is snake-oil", 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. > > This has been covered to death by now, both today and in the past > (search the archives of this and similar lists). > > Until we see scalable quantum authenticated quantum secrecy / key > distribution, QKD is not suitable for production deployment.
Right, but two things: 1) who disagrees with that? not me, 2) this isn't what my original comment was about. > [...] > , but QKD as a product sure is. Again, this is a useless statement in it's general form; you need to be specific. > Nico > -- -- Noon Silk Fancy a quantum lunch? https://sites.google.com/site/quantumlunch/ "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy of being this signature." _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
