Title |
Hacking the Bell test using classical light in energy-time entanglement–based quantum key distribution
|
---|---|
Published in |
Science Advances, December 2015
|
DOI | 10.1126/sciadv.1500793 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jonathan Jogenfors, Ashraf Mohamed Elhassan, Johan Ahrens, Mohamed Bourennane, Jan-Åke Larsson |
Abstract |
Photonic systems based on energy-time entanglement have been proposed to test local realism using the Bell inequality. A violation of this inequality normally also certifies security of device-independent quantum key distribution (QKD) so that an attacker cannot eavesdrop or control the system. We show how this security test can be circumvented in energy-time entangled systems when using standard avalanche photodetectors, allowing an attacker to compromise the system without leaving a trace. We reach Bell values up to 3.63 at 97.6% faked detector efficiency using tailored pulses of classical light, which exceeds even the quantum prediction. This is the first demonstration of a violation-faking source that gives both tunable violation and high faked detector efficiency. The implications are severe: the standard Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality cannot be used to show device-independent security for energy-time entanglement setups based on Franson's configuration. However, device-independent security can be reestablished, and we conclude by listing a number of improved tests and experimental setups that would protect against all current and future attacks of this type. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 14 | 16% |
Germany | 5 | 6% |
Sweden | 4 | 5% |
Spain | 4 | 5% |
Brazil | 2 | 2% |
Japan | 2 | 2% |
Argentina | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
Ireland | 2 | 2% |
Other | 15 | 17% |
Unknown | 34 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 68 | 79% |
Scientists | 12 | 14% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 5% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 2 | 3% |
Italy | 1 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 65 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 32% |
Researcher | 8 | 11% |
Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
Professor | 5 | 7% |
Other | 12 | 17% |
Unknown | 10 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Physics and Astronomy | 44 | 62% |
Engineering | 7 | 10% |
Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
Materials Science | 2 | 3% |
Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Unknown | 11 | 15% |