Effect of detector dead times on the security evaluation of differential-phase-shift quantum key distribution against sequential attacks

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 77, Issue 5, 2008, Pages

  Curty, Marcos ^a   Tamaki, Kiyoshi ^b,c   Moroder, Tobias ^d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

^b NTT Basic Research Laboratories   (Japan)

^c JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY   (Japan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INTRUSION DETECTION; NETWORK SECURITY; PHASE SHIFT KEYING; SIGNAL ANALYSIS;

DETECTOR DEAD TIMES; SECURITY EVALUATION; SIGNAL STATES;

QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY;

EID: 43949084413     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.052321     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. RMPHAT 0034-6861 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145 74, 145 (2002)
2. M. Duek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Hendrych, Prog. Opt. POPTAN 0079-6638 49, 381 (2006).
3. G. S. Vernam, Trans. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng. TAEEA5 0096-3860 45, 295 (1926).
4. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India (IEEE, New York, 1984), p. 175.
5. D. Mayers, J. ACM 48, 351 (2001) 0004-5411
6. H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.283. 5410.2050 283, 2050 (1999)
7. E. Biham, M. Boyer, P. O. Boykin, T. Mor, and V. Roychowdhury, Proceedings of the Thirty Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, New York, USA (ACM Press, New York, 2000), p. 715
8. P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441 85, 441 (2000).
9. C. H. Bennett, F. Bessette, G. Brassard, L. Salvail, and J. Smolin, J. Cryptology JOCREQ 0933-2790 10.1007/BF00191318 5, 3 (1992).
10. C. Marand and P. D. Townsend, Opt. Lett. 20, 1695 (1995) 0146-9592
11. D. S. Bethune, M. Navarro, and W. P. Risk, Appl. Opt. APOPAI 0003-6935 10.1364/AO.41.001640 41, 1640 (2002)
12. R. J. Hughes, J. E. Nordholt, D. Derkacs, and C. G. Peterson, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/4/1/343 4, 43 (2002)
13. D. Stucki, N. Gisin, O. Guinnard, G. Ribordy, and H. Zbinden, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/4/1/341 4, 41 (2002)
14. C. Gobby, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Appl. Phys. Lett. APPLAB 0003-6951 10.1063/1.1738173 84, 3762 (2004)
15. C. Gobby, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Electron. Lett. ELLEAK 0013-5194 10.1049/el:20045038 40, 1603 (2004).
16. B. Huttner, N. Imoto, N. Gisin, and T. Mor, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.51.1863 51, 1863 (1995).
17. G. Brassard, N. Lütkenhaus, T. Mor, and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1330 85, 1330 (2000).
18. N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.61. 052304 61, 052304 (2000).
19. H. Inamori, N. Lütkenhaus, and D. Mayers, Eur. Phys. J. D EPJDF6 1434-6060 10.1140/epjd/e2007-00010-4 41, 599 (2007).
20. D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. Lütkenhaus, and J. Preskill, Quantum Inf. Comput. 4, 325 (2004). 0890-5401
21. W.-Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91. 057901 91, 057901 (2003)
22. H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.230504 94, 230504 (2005)
23. X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94. 230503 94, 230503 (2005)
24. X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H.-K. Lo, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012326 72, 012326 (2005)
25. X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012322 72, 012322 (2005)
26. X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.049908 72, 049908 (E) (2005)
27. J. W. Harrington, J. M. Ettinger, R. J. Hughes, and J. E. Nordholt, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0503002, Los Alamos Report No. LA-UR-05-1156, 2005 (unpublished)
28. X. Ma, C.-H. F. Fung, F. Dupuis, K. Chen, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.032330 74, 032330 (2006)
29. X.-B. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, Appl. Phys. Lett. APPLAB 0003-6951 10.1063/1.2431718 90, 031110 (2007)
30. X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.052301 75, 052301 (2007)
31. W. Mauerer and C. Silberhorn, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.050305 75, 050305 (R) (2007).
32. Y. Zhao, B. Qi, X. Ma, H.-K. Lo, and L. Qian, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.070502 96, 070502 (2006)
33. Y. Zhao, B. Qi, X. Ma, H.-K. Lo, and L. Qian, Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on information theory (ISIT'06), 2006, p. 2094
34. C.-Z. Peng, J. Zhang, D. Yang, W.-B. Gao, H.-X. Ma, H. Yin, H.-P. Zeng, T. Yang, X.-B. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.010505 98, 010505 (2007)
35. D. Rosenberg, J. W. Harrington, P. R. Rice, P. A. Hiskett, C. G. Peterson, R. J. Hughes, A. E. Lita, S. W. Nam, and J. E. Nordholt, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.010503 98, 010503 (2007)
36. T. Schmitt-Manderbach, H. Weier, M. Fürst, R. Ursin, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Scheidl, J. Perdigues, Z. Sodnik, C. Kurtsiefer, J. G. Rarity, A. Zeilinger, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.010504 98, 010504 (2007)
37. Z. L. Yuan, A. W. Sharpe, and A. J. Shields, Appl. Phys. Lett. APPLAB 0003-6951 10.1063/1.2430685 90, 011118 (2007)
38. Z.-Q. Yin, Z.-F. Han, W. Chen, F.-X. Xu, Q.-L. Wu, and G.-C. Guo e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0704.2941
39. J. Hasegawa, M. Hayashi, T. Hiroshima, A. Tanaka, and A. Tomita, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0705.3081
40. J. F. Dynes, Z. L. Yuan, A. W. Sharpe, and A. J. Shields, Opt. Express OPEXFF 1094-4087 10.1364/OE.15.008465 15, 8465 (2007).
41. C. H. Bennett, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68. 3121 68, 3121 (1992).
42. M. Koashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93. 120501 93, 120501 (2004)
43. K. Tamaki, N. Lütkenhaus, M. Koashi, and J. Batuwantudawe, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0607082.
44. K. Inoue, E. Waks, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.037902 89, 037902 (2002)
45. K. Inoue, E. Waks, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022317 68, 022317 (2003).
46. E. Waks, H. Takesue, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012344 73, 012344 (2006).
47. H. Takesue, E. Diamanti, T. Honjo, C. Langrock, M. M. Fejer, K. Inoue, and Y. Yamamoto, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/232 7, 232 (2005).
48. E. Diamanti, H. Takesue, C. Langrock, M. M. Fejer, and Y. Yamamoto, Opt. Express OPEXFF 1094-4087 10.1364/OE.14.013073 14, 13073 (2006).
49. E. Diamanti, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 2006.
50. H. Takesue, S. W. Nam, Q. Zhang, R. H. Hadfield, T. Honjo, K. Tamaki, and Y. Yamamoto, Nat. Photonics ZZZZZZ 1749-4885 1, 343 (2007).
51. C. Branciard, N. Gisin, and V. Scarani, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/10/1/013031 10, 013031 (2008).
52. M. Curty, L. L. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and N. Lütkenhaus, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 665 (2007). 0890-5401
53. T. Tsurumaru, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062319 75, 062319 (2007).
54. M. Duek, M. Jahma, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.022306 62, 022306 (2000).
55. S. Félix, N. Gisin, A. Stefanov, and H. Zbinden, J. Mod. Opt. JMOPEW 0950-0340 10.1080/09500340110076437 48, 2009 (2001).
56. M. Curty and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.062301 71, 062301 (2005).
57. M. Curty, M. Lewenstein, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.217903 92, 217903 (2004)
58. M. Curty, O. Gühne, M. Lewenstein, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022306 71, 022306 (2005).
59. In order to simplify our notation, from now on we will employ the term "signal state" only to denote those light pulses with a mean photon number bigger than 0. A light pulse with an average photon number equal to 0 will be always denoted as a "vacuum state."
60. I. D. Ivanovic, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/0375-9601(87) 90222-2 123, 257 (1987)
61. D. Dieks, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/0375-9601(88)90840-7 126, 303 (1988)
62. A. Peres, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/0375-9601(88)91034-1 128, 19 (1988)
63. G. Jaeger and A. Shimony, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/0375-9601(94)00919-G 197, 83 (1995).
64. A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00827-5 250, 223 (1998).
65. For instance, any attempt by Eve to shift the wavelength of the signals into a region of a higher detection efficiency of Bob's detectors can be blocked by the use of a narrow frequency filter.
66. V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Duek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0802.4155.
67. D. Stucki, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, V. Scarani, and H. Zbinden, Appl. Phys. Lett. APPLAB 0003-6951 10.1063/1.2126792 87, 194108 (2005).
68. N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, H. Zbinden, D. Stucki, N. Brunner, and V. Scarani, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0411022.
69. C. Branciard, N. Gisin, N. Lütkenhaus, and V. Scarani, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 639 (2007). 0890-5401
70. M. Horodecki, P. W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, Rev. Math. Phys. RMPHEX 0129-055X 10.1142/S0129055X03001709 15, 629 (2003)
71. M. B. Ruskai, Rev. Math. Phys. RMPHEX 0129-055X 10.1142/S0129055X03001710 15, 643 (2003).
72. In order to show that Eve can always phase lock her local oscillator to the coherent light source of Alice, note that she could employ, for instance, the following recursive method. First, she uses a beam splitter to extract a portion of light of several (say M) consecutive signal states emitted by Alice. Afterwards, she continues splitting N more times these M pulses that she has just extracted. As a result, she obtains N trains of M pulses each. These pulses maintain the same phase relationship as the original ones sent by Alice. Now, she measures out the first train of pulses by using the same detection apparatus as Bob. With some finite probability she can identify the relative phase of some pairs of consecutive pulses inside this train. Once this process ends, Eve discards, from the remaining N-1 trains of M signals, those pairs of pulses whose relative phase was not unambiguously determined on the first train. Finally, she combines the remaining pairs using a 50:50 beam splitter. This way, Eve can obtain N-1 new trains of pulses containing a smaller number of them. Most importantly, since Eve knows the relative phase of each pair of pulses that entered the beam splitter in the previous step, and as a result of this, she knows in which output port of it she has a pulse of coherent light. This means, in particular, that the amplitudes of these new coherent pulses contained in the new N-1 trains are also amplified. Eve repeats this procedure several times on these remaining N-1 trains of signals, i.e., she measures out the first of these trains by using again the same detection device as Bob, and then she follows the same steps described above. As a result, and assuming that M and N are large enough, Eve can obtain a very bright single pulse and she can measure its phase.
73. This measurement strategy is very similar to the one considered in Ref.. Note, however, that it provides Eve with a higher success probability of unambiguously identifying a sequence of signal states. The reason for this is that in Ref. Eve first divides her data of measurement outcomes into different blocks of the same length and, afterwards, she analyzes each block of data independently, i.e., without considering the data included in adjacent blocks. Therefore, in this scenario it may happen that two consecutive blocks do not contain enough successful USD outcomes to consider their sequences of measurement results successful unless the data included in both blocks is jointly evaluated.
74. Note that Bob can also obtain a click in temporal mode n=0 due to the time delay introduced by Bob's interferometer in one of its paths.
75. M. Curty and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.042321 69, 042321 (2004).
76. Since in DPS QKD Bob does not monitor the coherence between states with different photon number, there is no difference for Eve whether she sends to Bob the signal states ρek given by Eq. 18, or she sends him the signal states | ψk = m=1 pm exp (i m) | ψkm, with | ψkm given by Eq. 19.
77. N. Lütkenhaus, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. APBOEM 0946-2171 10.1007/s003400050825 69, 395 (1999).
78. In this section we shall use the parameter d defined as d = æ td fc æ instead of the parameter d employed in Sec. 4. The main motivation for this change of the notation is to try to avoid ambiguities when referring to the parameter d. In particular, since in the calibrated device scenario we impose d=0 for the blocks of signal states illustrated in Fig. 2.
79. In this extended version of the DPS QKD protocol Alice and Bob could as well employ the double click rate information that is measured in the experiment to try to discard those sequential attacks that highly decrease the value of the double click rate expected by the legitimate users. For instance, we have shown in Sec. 4 that the eavesdropping strategy employed by Eve for the case of uncalibrated devices produces a double click rate equal to 0. However, if we consider a real implementation of the protocol, then this last scenario is not so simple, since the double click rate expected by Alice and Bob due to the dark counts of the detectors is usually quite low.
80. In this section we consider that the parameter ηdet also includes the losses due to Bob's interferometer.
81. B. Yurke, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.32.311 32, 311 (1985).
82. Note that in this definition we treat double clicks as single click events.