Another Look at Symmetric Incoherent Optimal Eavesdropping against BB84

  • Arpita Maitra
  • Goutam Paul
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7668)


The BB84 protocol is used by Alice (the sender) and Bob (the receiver) to settle on a secret classical bit-string by communicating qubits over an insecure quantum channel where Eve (the Eavesdropper) can have access. In this paper, we revisit a well known eavesdropping technique against BB84. We claim that there exist certain gaps in understanding the existing eavesdropping strategy in terms of cryptanalytic view and we try to bridge those gaps in this paper.

First we refer to the result where it is shown that in the six-state variant of the BB84 protocol (Bruß, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1998), the mutual information between Alice (the sender) and Eve (the eavesdropper) is higher when two-bit probe is used compared to the one-bit probe and hence the two-bit probe provides a stronger eavesdropping strategy. However, from cryptanalytic point of view, we show that Eve has the same success probability in guessing the bit transmitted by Alice in both the cases of the two-bit and the one-bit probe. Thus, we point out that having higher mutual information may not directly lead to obtaining higher probability in guessing the key bit.

It is also explained in the work of Bruß that the six-state variant of the BB84 protocol is more secure than the traditional four-state BB84. We look into this point in more detail and identify that this advantage is only achieved at the expense of communicating more qubits in the six-state protocol. In fact, we present different scenarios, where given the same number of qubits communicated, the security comparison of the four and six-state protocols is evaluated carefully.


Advantage BB84 Key Distribution Optimal Eavesdropping Quantum Cryptography 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G.: Quantum Cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, pp. 175–179. IEEE, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Robert, J.M.: Privacy amplification by public discussion. SIAM Journal on Computing 17(2), 210–229 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett, C.H., Bessette, F., Brassard, G., Salvail, L., Smolin, J.: Experimental quantum cryptography. Journal of Cryptology 5(1), 3–28 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernstein, D.J., Buchmann, J., Dahmen, E. (eds.): Post-Quantum Cryptography. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biham, E., Mor, T.: Bounds on Information and the Security of Quantum Cryptography. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4034–4037 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruß, D.: Optimal eavesdropping in quantum cryptography with six states. Physical Review Letters 81, 3018–3021 (1998) (quant-ph/9805019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cirac, J.I., Gisin, N.: Coherent eavesdropping strategies for the 4 state quantum cryptography protocol. Physics Letters A 229(1), 1–7 (1997) (quant-ph/9702002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cover, T., Thomas, J.: Elements of Information Theory, 1st edn., pp. 16–20. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diffie, W., Hellman, M.E.: New Directions in Cryptography. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 22, 644–654 (1976)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuchs, C.A., Gisin, N., Griffiths, R.B., Niu, C.S., Peres, A.: Optimal eavesdropping in quantum cryptography. I. Information bound and optimal strategy. Physical Review A 56(2), 1163–1172 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, V.S.: Use of Elliptic Curves in Cryptography. In: Williams, H.C. (ed.) CRYPTO 1985. LNCS, vol. 218, pp. 417–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phoenix, S.J.D.: Quantum cryptography without conjugate coding. Physical Review A 48(1), 96–102 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quantum Key Distribution Equipment. ID Quantique (IDQ),
  15. 15.
    Quantum Key Distribution System (Q-Box). MagiQ Technologies Inc.,
  16. 16.
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Adleman, L.: A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public Key Cryptosystems. Communications of the ACM 21, 120–126 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shor, P.: Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring. In: Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 124–134. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stinson, D.: Cryptography Theory and Practice, 3rd edn., pp. 80–81. Chapman & Hall / CRC (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiesner, S.: Conjugate Coding (1970) (manuscript); subsequently published in SIGACT News 15(1), 78–88 (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arpita Maitra
    • 1
  • Goutam Paul
    • 2
  1. 1.Applied Statistics UnitIndian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations