We revisit the notion of deniability in quantum key exchange (QKE), a topic that remains largely unexplored. In the only work on this subject by Donald Beaver, it is argued that QKE is not necessarily deniable due to an eavesdropping attack that limits key equivocation. We provide more insight into the nature of this attack and how it extends to other constructions such as QKE obtained from uncloneable encryption. We then adopt the framework for quantum authenticated key exchange, developed by , and extend it to introduce the notion of coercer-deniable QKE, formalized in terms of the indistinguishability of real and fake coercer views. Next, we apply results from a recent work by Arrazola and Scarani on covert quantum communication to establish a connection between covert QKE and deniability. We propose DC-QKE, a simple deniable covert QKE protocol, and prove its deniability via a reduction to the security of covert QKE. Finally, we consider how entanglement distillation can be used to enable information-theoretically deniable protocols for QKE and tasks beyond key exchange.
To the best of our knowledge, the only work related to deniability in QKE is a single paper by Beaver @cite_32 , in which the author suggests a negative result arguing that existing QKE schemes are not necessarily deniable.
@cite_32
2583450375
We show that claims of perfect security for keys produced by quantum key exchange (QKE) are limited to privacy and integrity. Unlike a one-time pad, QKE does not necessarily enable Sender and Receiver to pretend later to have established a different key. This result is puzzling in light of Mayers' No-Go theorem showing the impossibility of quantum bit commitment. But even though a simple and intuitive application of Mayers' protocol transformation appears sufficient to provide deniability (else QBC would be possible), we show several reasons why such conclusions are ill-founded. Mayers' transformation arguments, while sound for QBC, are insufficient to establish deniability in QKE. Having shed light on several unadvertised pitfalls, we then provide a candidate deniable QKE protocol. This itself indicates further shortfalls in current proof techniques, including reductions that preserve privacy but fail to preserve deniability. In sum, purchasing undeniability with an off-the-shelf QKE protocol is significantly more expensive and dangerous than the mere optic fiber for which perfect security is advertised.