which brings us back to using any algorithm such as that described still works on the simplistic concept like the DOD logx to x and this to thjat key crap….

I rather see utilization of biological living tissue to perform these calculations…DNA is a great computer

and man can two carrots fly….

jezz when was that Princeton research on dna calculating my flight from la to ny hehehehhehe like 1986

]]>The surprising result is that randomly selecting from a family of non-cryptographically-secure hash functions, and encrypting the “selector” as well as the hash result gives an unconditionally secure authentication scheme. This is similar to the basis for Galois counter mode.

I may have to write a post about this in the future.

]]>In the paper you referred, s is the security parameter, namely the adversary learns the secret key with probability 2^{-s}, and it assumes no computational power for the adversary. Actually, the paper shows if you can do unconditionally secure authentication, you can already perform perfect encryption.

QKD can be performed without computational assumption, however, it does need some other assumptions: e.g., “current quantum physics hypothesis is correct”. Historically, if a scheme is without computational assumption, it is also called “unconditionally secure”, which is quite misleading.

QKD gets weak when the distance increases, as for current technologies.

I agree with you that QKD is not practical at all, and QC cannot solve all the problems we have in hand.

]]>One-time pad is not very usable with QKD systems since you have to exchange 1 bit per bit of message you encrypt. At distance, this is only a few hundred bits per second. There may be attempts to increase the bit exchange rate but I doubt OTP encryption is used for anything other than the smallest messages.

]]>