'Quantum network? We've had one for years,' says Los Alamos The boffins at the Los Alamos National Laboratory are known as a secretive lot; a much understated lot, in fact. Rather than cause a fuss, researchers there have quietly published a paper showing they've had a flexible quantum network – something rather a lot of people are interested in – up and running for two and a half years …
So its no more secure than SSL then?if the hub is compromised, the message is compromised, i.e. a man in the middle attack can still work, but only at a hub.,,.. .... MrXavia Posted Tuesday 7th May 2013 19:37 GMT
If the message is compromised and/or compromising, are the hub and connected and connecting players compromised.
* SMARTR Bots on AIMissions in Virtual Reality Plays, which are known to be easily perceived and accepted by Primitive and BaseICQ Intelligence Units** as anything else other than Leading Virtual Reality Players.
** Humans/Earthed Beings in Surreal Alien Landscapes with Live Operational Virtual Environments
Nota Bene ...... No questions in that Short Steganographic Service Message to cause confusion or introduce doubt for the Madness and Mayhem of Posts which paint the Present to regularly deliver Zeroday Failures as Derivative Future Fare ...... which is the Primitive Human Condition and Current Universal Position?
A crazy rhetorical question indeed, whenever it be so obviously true.
nah mate, the truth is that TPTB started the tinfoil hat rumour specifically so they could gain greater control - the thought that it acts like a faraday cage is false (it would have to totally enclose the head for that to work, since your neck is in the way thats not really gonna happen) as it is in fact open at the front and base this means it collects radio waves and in fact focuses them to a central point ( your brain), think parabolic antenna.
true a subject wearing a tinfoil hat would be partially shielded from behind, but from just about every other angle they will be concentrating the nefarious mind control/reading/dumbing rays.
yay science
disclaimer: the author of this post does not admit to belief in these various conspiracy theories so those black helicopters can stop following me now please. however the author of this post does admit that this information is useful for annoying the shit out of holier than thou whackjobs who think theyre "special" and "enlightened" and use the term "sheeple" a lot.
It's not a perfect system. While it's relatively scalable within a locale, the hub and spoke system has inherent disadvantages on very large scales, and the authors acknowledge that if the hub is compromised in any way, the messages are insecure.
So I imagine it's also a bit insecure if the hub were managed by, say, a government authority?
... the moment you allow a commercial network manager/engineer anywhere near it. They'll immediately block the traffic as a security risk, because it can't be analysed by one of their "magical" (hey they think they're magical) network sniffers, and so could be carrying "all sorts of risks to the business". Try telling them about Metcalfe's Law.
Point-to-point encrypted quantum communications have been well-demonstrated as being possible over longish distances, but while Alice and Bob can talk to each other, a message can't be routed to Charlie, since the act of doing so destroys the integrity of the information. Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users it has, so point-to-point is rather, well, pointless.
I agree completely with this paragraph, and hence do not think that what LANL have come up with deserves to be called a network. The fact that the messages have to be decrypted and re-encrypted in the middle means precisely that while Alice and Trent can talk to each other, a message can't be routed to Bob or Charlie; what they have here is three orthogonal point-to-point links. Until it can do real end-to-end encryption, it's not worthy of being called a network. After all, the main (sole?) advantage of quantum crypto over bog-standard public key crypto is the ability to detect snooping by a MitM; if every endpoint-to-endpoint communication has to be MitM'd by design, you've lost that one main advantage.
And seriously, how can anyone honestly describe something with a central single point-of-failure which has to connect to *every* end node and route *every* message as "scalable"? That's simply not what scalable means. The internet works so well because of its hierarchical scale-free topology; reverting to hub-and-spoke is a major step backwards in scalability.
In other words, this is not by any stretch of the imagination "a hell of a lot further along than anyone else is admitting to in public"; it's exactly what everyone else has, only three of them side-by-side. "Bragging rights"? Colour me unimpressed; the paper is nothing but bragging, yet without any right to do so.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
