Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering new topics for CFRG)

Sean Turner <TurnerS@ieca.com> Wed, 08 January 2014 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <TurnerS@ieca.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5EF1AE463 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:27:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8mOdatQWw2LI for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway08.websitewelcome.com (gateway08.websitewelcome.com [69.56.159.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC261AE45F for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gateway08.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 8538E49687F7E; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:27:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway08.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF2B49687EB8 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:27:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [173.73.130.192] (port=54479 helo=[192.168.1.4]) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <TurnerS@ieca.com>) id 1W0v2P-0005En-KG; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:27:21 -0600
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_540A4684-B269-4AA6-B65F-7C28311FFAE2"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Sean Turner <TurnerS@ieca.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEF2F2B4.1346A%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:27:18 -0500
Message-Id: <B9AC6708-8BF0-45EA-9B6A-4C00B4741057@ieca.com>
References: <52C755AA.70200@cisco.com> <33E0BF53-A331-4646-B080-FD4F6E13916E@ieca.com> <52CD314B.2000604@cisco.com> <CEF2F2B4.1346A%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
To: "Paterson, Kenny" <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>, David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3286.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 173.73.130.192
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([192.168.1.4]) [173.73.130.192]:54479
X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20=
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering new topics for CFRG)
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:27:33 -0000

On Jan 08, 2014, at 07:20, Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>; wrote:

> 
> 
> On 08/01/2014 12:06, "David McGrew" <mcgrew@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
>> Hi Sean,
>> 
>> On 01/08/2014 12:26 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>> My list is kind of short:
>> 
>> thanks for sharing your top of mind list, it will help us to prioritize
>> work.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 0) Could the CFRG get behind these recommendations for RSA-OAEP/PSS or
>>> not:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg04481.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg04482.html
>>> 
>>> If so, let¹s do a draft!
>>> 
>>> 1) Assuming RSA goes kaput, it seems like we¹re moving towards EC (am I
>>> wrong here) then are these EC-based documents worth saying more about
>>> (e.g., in the next version of the protocol use this or run away in fear):
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6979/
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peck-ecdhpop/
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jivsov-ecc-compact/
>>> 
>>> 2) Is QKD something we need to start considering:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nagayama-ipsecme-ipsec-with-qkd-00.txt
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ghernaouti-sfaxi-ppp-qkd-00.txt
>> 
>> #0 and #1 are well worth discussion.   For now, I will only comment on #2.
>> 
>> Quantum Key Distribution does not provide a solution to any problem that
>> we have at hand, and is not worthy of serious consideration for
>> extensive use in the Internet.
> 
> <excellent explanation of the shortcomings of QKD excised>
> 
>> 
>> My talk isn't online (just mentioned but not archived
>> http://bristolcrypto.blogspot.com/2012_12_01_archive.html)   If we need
>> to get these points understood more widely, we could publish something
>> on it.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder about this talk, which I very much enjoyed at the
> time.
> 
> A few years back, we wrote a paper [1] explaining why we believed that QKD
> is not commercially interesting. Some of the points are orthogonal to
> yours, some overlap.
> 
> [1] Quantum cryptography: a practical information security perspective.
> Kenneth G. Paterson, Fred Piper, Ruediger Schack
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0406147
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Kenny

I love instant gratification! 

spt