Paper detail

Security proof for cryptographic protocols based only on the monogamy of Bell's inequality violations

We show that monogamy of Bell's inequality violations, which is strictly weaker condition than no-signaling is enough to prove security of quantum key distribution. We derive our results for a whole class of monogamy constraints and generalize our results to any theory that communicating parties may have access to. Some of these theories do not respect no-signaling principle yet still allow for secure communication. This proves that no-signaling is only a sufficient condition for the possibility of secure communication, but not the necessary one. We also present some new qualitative results concerning the security of existing quantum key distribution protocols.

preprint2010arXivOpen 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.