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,...
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 consider what constitutes identities in cryptography. Typical examples include your name and your social-security number, or your fingerprint iris-scan, or your address, or your (non-revoked) public-key coming from some trusted public-key infrastructure. In many situations, however, where you are defines your identity. For example, we know the role of a bank-teller behind a bullet-proof bank window not because she shows us her credentials but by merely knowing her location. In this paper, we initiate the study of cryptographic protocols where the identity (or other credentials and inputs) of a party are derived from its geographic location. We start by considering the central task in this setting, i.e., securely verifying the position of a device. Despite much work in this area, we show that in the Vanilla (or standard) model, the above task (i.e., of secure positioning) is impossible to achieve. In light of the above impossibility result, we then turn to the Bounded Storage Model and formalize and construct information theoretically secure protocols for two fundamental tasks: Secure Positioning; and Position Based Key Exchange. We then show that these tasks are in fact universal in this setting --- we show how we can use them to realize Secure Multi-Party Computation.Our main contribution in this paper is threefold: to place the problem of secure positioning on a sound theoretical footing; to prove a strong impossibility result that simultaneously shows the insecurity of previous attempts at the problem; and to present positive results by showing that the bounded-storage framework is, in fact, one of the "right" frameworks (there may be others) to study the foundations of position-based cryptography. The ability to unconditionally verify the location of a communication receiver would lead to a wide range of new security paradigms. However, it is known that unconditional location verification in classical communication systems is impossible. In this work we show how unconditional location verification can be achieved with the use of quantum communication channels. Our verification remains unconditional irrespective of the number of receivers, computational capacity, or any other physical resource held by an adversary. Quantum location verification represents an application of quantum entanglement that delivers a feat not possible in the classical-only channel. It gives us the ability to deliver real-time communications viable only at specified geographical coordinates. 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. We consider information-theoretic key agreement between two parties sharing somewhat different versions of a secret w that has relatively little entropy. Such key agreement, also known as information reconciliation and privacy amplification over unsecured channels, was shown to be theoretically feasible by Renner and Wolf (Eurocrypt 2004), although no protocol that runs in polynomial time was described. We propose a protocol that is not only polynomial-time, but actually practical, requiring only a few seconds on consumer-grade computers. Our protocol can be seen as an interactive version of robust fuzzy extractors (, Crypto 2006). While robust fuzzy extractors, due to their noninteractive nature, require w to have entropy at least half its length, we have no such constraint. In fact, unlike in prior solutions, in our solution the entropy loss is essentially unrelated to the length or the entropy of w , and depends only on the security parameter.