In this work, we study position-based cryptography in the quantum setting. The aim is to use the geographical position of a party as its only credential. On the negative side, we show that if adversaries are allowed to share an arbitrarily large entangled quantum state, the task of secure position-verification is impossible. To this end, we prove the following very general result. Assume that Alice and Bob hold respectively subsystems @math and @math of a (possibly) unknown quantum state @math . Their goal is to calculate and share a new state @math , where @math is a fixed unitary operation. The question that we ask is how many rounds of mutual communication are needed. It is easy to achieve such a task using two rounds of classical communication, whereas, in general, it is impossible with no communication at all. Surprisingly, in case Alice and Bob share enough entanglement to start with and we allow an arbitrarily small failure probability,...
Concurrent and independent of our work and the work on quantum tagging described above, the approach of using quantum techniques for secure position-verification was proposed by Malaney @cite_1 @cite_17 . However, the proposed scheme is merely claimed secure, and no rigorous security analysis is provided. As pointed out in @cite_19 , Malaney's schemes can also be broken by a teleportation-based attack. @ have proposed and proved secure a quantum scheme for position-verification @cite_33 . However, their proof implicitly assumed that the adversaries have no pre-shared entanglement; as shown in @cite_19 , their scheme also becomes insecure without this assumption.
@cite_19 @cite_1 @cite_33 @cite_17
2095058629 1840167064 2121957834 2163684974
Recently, position-based quantum cryptography has been claimed to be unconditionally secure. On the contrary, here we show that the existing proposals for position-based quantum cryptography are, in fact, insecure if entanglement is shared among two adversaries. Specifically, we demonstrate how the adversaries can incorporate ideas of quantum teleportation and quantum secret sharing to compromise the security with certainty. The common flaw to all current protocols is that the Pauli operators always map a codeword to a codeword (up to an irrelevant overall phase). We propose a modified scheme lacking this property in which the same cheating strategy used to undermine the previous protocols can succeed with a rate of at most 85 . We prove the modified protocol is secure when the shared quantum resource between the adversaries is a two- or three-level system. We define the task of quantum tagging, that is, authenticating the classical location of a classical tagging device by sending and receiving quantum signals from suitably located distant sites, in an environment controlled by an adversary whose quantum information processing and transmitting power is unbounded. We define simple security models for this task and briefly discuss alternatives. We illustrate the pitfalls of naive quantum cryptographic reasoning in this context by describing several protocols which at first sight appear unconditionally secure but which, as we show, can in fact be broken by teleportation-based attacks. We also describe some protocols which cannot be broken by these specific attacks, but do not prove they are unconditionally secure. We review the history of quantum tagging protocols, and show that protocols previously proposed by Malaney and are provably insecure. 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. We show that any number of parties can coherently exchange any one pure quantum state for another, without communication, given prior shared entanglement. Two applications of this fact to the study of multi-prover quantum interactive proof systems are given. First, we prove that there exists a one-round two-prover quantum interactive proof system for which no finite amount of shared entanglement allows the provers to implement an optimal strategy. More specifically, for every fixed input string, there exists a sequence of strategies for the provers, with each strategy requiring more entanglement than the last, for which the probability for the provers to convince the verifier to accept approaches 1. It is not possible, however, for the provers to convince the verifier to accept with certainty with a finite amount of shared entanglement. The second application is a simple proof that multi-prover quantum interactive proofs can be transformed to have near-perfect completeness by the addition of one round of communication.