Barnum, Crepeau, Gottesman, Tapp, and Smith (quant-ph 0205128) proposed methods for authentication of quantum messages. The first method is an interactive protocol (TQA') based on teleportation. The second method is a noninteractive protocol (QA) in which the sender first encrypts the message using a protocol QEnc and then encodes the quantum ciphertext with an error correcting code chosen secretly from a set (a purity test code (PTC)). Encryption was shown to be necessary for authentication. We augment the protocol QA with an extra step which recycles the entire encryption key provided QA accepts the message. We analyze the resulting integrated protocol for quantum authentication and key generation, which we call QA+KG. Our main result is a proof that QA+KG is universal composably (UC) secure in the Ben-Or-Mayers model (quant-ph 0409062). More specifically, this implies the UC-security of (a) QA, (b) recycling of the encryption key in QA, and (c) key-recycling of the encryption scheme QEnc by appending PTC. For an m-qubit message, encryption requires 2m bits of key; but PTC can be performed using only O(log m) + O(log e) bits of key for probability of failure e. Thus, we reduce the key required for both QA and QEnc, from linear to logarithmic net consumption, at the expense of one bit of back communication which can happen any time after the conclusion of QA and before reusing the key. UC-security of QA also extends security to settings not obvious from quant-ph 0205128. Our security proof structure is inspired by and similar to that of quant-ph 0205128, reducing the security of QA to that of TQA'. In the process, we define UC-secure entanglement, and prove the UC-security of the entanglement generating protocol given in quant-ph 0205128, which could be of independent interest.
The current manuscript differs from our QCRYPT'11 submission in four ways. (1) We found a mis-statement of the adversarial power in the QCRYPT'11 submission which is corrected here -- the adversary should be given the purification of the message (full quantum side information) for the attack. Our proof is independent of whether the adversary is given this purification or not. (2) We simplified the last step of the proof (and as a bonus reduced the insecurity parameter by a factor of 3). (3) In view of @cite_42 , we removed claims of proof of the composability of the Wegman-Carter authentication scheme for classical messages in this paper. Our claim was based on a simple (but slightly mistaken) proof in a half-page appendix. We decide to keep the appendix for readers who want a quick main idea, but refer to the detailed subsequent result in @cite_42 . (4) We revived an appendix on authentication of pure quantum states (which was removed in QCRYPT'11 due to page limit). Finally, as mentioned earlier, we briefly discussed the case for transmission through noisy channel, and made other minor changes.
@cite_42
2121957834 2547753369 2530225612 2165923712
Standard security proofs of quantum-key-distribution (QKD) protocols often rely on symmetry arguments. In this paper, we prove the security of a three-state protocol that does not possess rotational symmetry. The three-state QKD protocol we consider involves three qubit states, where the first two states @math and @math can contribute to key generation, and the third state @math is for channel estimation. This protocol has been proposed and implemented experimentally in some frequency-based QKD systems where the three states can be prepared easily. Thus, by founding on the security of this three-state protocol, we prove that these QKD schemes are, in fact, unconditionally secure against any attacks allowed by quantum mechanics. The main task in our proof is to upper bound the phase error rate of the qubits given the bit error rates observed. Unconditional security can then be proved not only for the ideal case of a single-photon source and perfect detectors, but also for the realistic case of a phase-randomized weak coherent light source and imperfect threshold detectors. Our result in the phase error rate upper bound is independent of the loss in the channel. Also, we compare the three-state protocol with the Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) protocol. For the single-photon source case, our result proves that the BB84 protocol strictly tolerates a higher quantum bit error rate than the three-state protocol, while for the coherent-source case, the BB84 protocol achieves a higher key generation rate and secure distance than the three-state protocol when a decoy-state method is used. Barnum, Crepeau, Gottesman, Tapp, and Smith (quant-ph 0205128) proposed methods for authentication of quantum messages. The first method is an interactive protocol (TQA') based on teleportation. The second method is a noninteractive protocol (QA) in which the sender first encrypts the message using a protocol QEnc and then encodes the quantum ciphertext with an error correcting code chosen secretly from a set (a purity test code (PTC)). Encryption was shown to be necessary for authentication. We augment the protocol QA with an extra step which recycles the entire encryption key provided QA accepts the message. We analyze the resulting integrated protocol for quantum authentication and key generation, which we call QA+KG. Our main result is a proof that QA+KG is universal composably (UC) secure in the Ben-Or-Mayers model (quant-ph 0409062). More specifically, this implies the UC-security of (a) QA, (b) recycling of the encryption key in QA, and (c) key-recycling of the encryption scheme QEnc by appending PTC. For an m-qubit message, encryption requires 2m bits of key; but PTC can be performed using only O(log m) + O(log e) bits of key for probability of failure e. Thus, we reduce the key required for both QA and QEnc, from linear to logarithmic net consumption, at the expense of one bit of back communication which can happen any time after the conclusion of QA and before reusing the key. UC-security of QA also extends security to settings not obvious from quant-ph 0205128. Our security proof structure is inspired by and similar to that of quant-ph 0205128, reducing the security of QA to that of TQA'. In the process, we define UC-secure entanglement, and prove the UC-security of the entanglement generating protocol given in quant-ph 0205128, which could be of independent interest. We show that a family of quantum authentication protocols introduced in [, FOCS 2002] can be used to construct a secure quantum channel and additionally recycle all of the secret key if the message is successfully authenticated, and recycle part of the key if tampering is detected. We give a full security proof that constructs the secure channel given only insecure noisy channels and a shared secret key. We also prove that the number of recycled key bits is optimal for this family of protocols, i.e., there exists an adversarial strategy to obtain all non-recycled bits. Previous works recycled less key and only gave partial security proofs, since they did not consider all possible distinguishers (environments) that may be used to distinguish the real setting from the ideal secure quantum channel and secret key resource. Shor and Preskill (see Phys. Rev. Lett., vol.85, p.441, 2000) have provided a simple proof of security of the standard quantum key distribution scheme by Bennett and Brassard (1984) by demonstrating a connection between key distribution and entanglement purification protocols (EPPs) with one-way communications. Here, we provide proofs of security of standard quantum key distribution schemes, Bennett and Brassard and the six-state scheme, against the most general attack, by using the techniques of two-way entanglement purification. We demonstrate clearly the advantage of classical post-processing with two-way classical communications over classical post-processing with only one-way classical communications in quantum key distribution (QKD). This is done by the explicit construction of a new protocol for (the error correction detection and privacy amplification of) Bennett and Brassard that can tolerate a bit error rate of up to 18.9 , which is higher than what any Bennett and Brassard scheme with only one-way classical communications can possibly tolerate. Moreover, we demonstrate the advantage of the six-state scheme over Bennett and Brassard by showing that the six-state scheme can strictly tolerate a higher bit error rate than Bennett and Brassard. In particular, our six-state protocol can tolerate a bit error rate of 26.4 , which is higher than the upper bound of 25 bit error rate for any secure Bennett and Brassard protocol. Consequently, our protocols may allow higher key generation rate and remain secure over longer distances than previous protocols. Our investigation suggests that two-way entanglement purification is a useful tool in the study of advantage distillation, error correction, and privacy amplification protocols.