Advertisement

On the Power of Quantum Encryption Keys

  • Akinori Kawachi
  • Christopher Portmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5299)

Abstract

The standard definition of quantum state randomization, which is the quantum analog of the classical one-time pad, consists in applying some transformation to the quantum message conditioned on a classical secret key k. We investigate encryption schemes in which this transformation is conditioned on a quantum encryption key state ρ k instead of a classical string, and extend this symmetric-key scheme to an asymmetric-key model in which copies of the same encryption key ρ k may be held by several different people, but maintaining information-theoretical security. We find bounds on the message size and the number of copies of the encryption key which can be safely created in these two models in terms of the entropy of the decryption key, and show that the optimal bound can be asymptotically reached by a scheme using classical encryption keys. This means that the use of quantum states as encryption keys does not allow more of these to be created and shared, nor encrypt larger messages, than if these keys are purely classical.

Keywords

Quantum State Density Operator Message Size Classical Message Quantum Message 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hayden, P., Leung, D., Shor, P.W., Winter, A.: Randomizing quantum states: Constructions and applications. Communications in Mathematical Physics 250, 371–391 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambainis, A., Smith, A.: Small pseudo-random families of matrices: Derandomizing approximate quantum encryption. In: Jansen, K., Khanna, S., Rolim, J., Ron, D. (eds.) RANDOM 2004 and APPROX 2004. LNCS, vol. 3122, pp. 249–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dickinson, P., Nayak, A.: Approximate randomization of quantum states with fewer bits of key. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 864, pp. 18–36 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boykin, P.O., Roychowdhury, V.: Optimal encryption of quantum bits. Physical Review A 67, 42317 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambainis, A., Mosca, M., Tapp, A., de Wolf, R.: Private quantum channels. In: FOCS 2000: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Washington, DC, USA, vol. 547. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nayak, A., Sen, P.: Invertible quantum operations and perfect encryption of quantum states. Quantum Information and Computation 7, 103–110 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrow, A.W., Winter, A.: How many copies are needed for state discrimination? quant-ph/0606131 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayashi, M., Kawachi, A., Kobayashi, H.: Quantum measurements for hidden subgroup problems with optimal sample complexity. Quantum Information and Computation 8, 345–358 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawachi, A., Koshiba, T., Nishimura, H., Yamakami, T.: Computational indistinguishability between quantum states and its cryptographic application. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 268–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kawachi, A., Koshiba, T., Nishimura, H., Yamakami, T.: Computational indistinguishability between quantum states and its cryptographic application. Full version of [10], quant-ph/0403069 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alicki, R., Fannes, M.: Continuity of quantum conditional information. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37, L55–L57 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akinori Kawachi
    • 1
  • Christopher Portmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical and Computing SciencesTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations