Paper detail

Security of quantum key distribution with iterative sifting

Several quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols employ iterative sifting. After each quantum transmission round, Alice and Bob disclose part of their setting information (including their basis choices) for the detected signals. The quantum phase of the protocol then ends when the numbers of detected signals per basis exceed certain pre-agreed threshold values. Recently, however, Pfister et al. [New J. Phys. 18 053001 (2016)] showed that iterative sifting makes QKD insecure, especially in the finite key regime, if the parameter estimation for privacy amplification uses the random sampling theory. This implies that a number of existing finite key security proofs could be flawed and cannot guarantee security. Here, we solve this serious problem by showing that the use of Azuma's inequality for parameter estimation makes QKD with iterative sifting secure again. This means that the existing protocols whose security proof employs this inequality remain secure even if they employ iterative sifting. Also, our results highlight a fundamental difference between the random sampling theorem and Azuma's inequality in proving security.

preprint2017arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.