The security of the internet depends on encryption.
It allows your device and a faraway server to send private messages to each other
like your emails, your passwords, pictures of your cats, without anyone eavesdropping.
Today's encryption works pretty well, but a sophisticated quantum computer can break it,
and a universal quantum computing machine is likely to emerge in the near future.
"But quantum computers are already here…"
Yeah yeah I know, there are quantum computers on the market, but these are not the scary ones.
They use quantum annealing to solve certain optimisation problems.
They are not the full-blown quantum computers that threaten our security.
They are too highly specialized for that.
But when the general-purpose quantum computers come…
Are we DOOMED???
Maybe… but we can fight quantum with quantum.
For the moment, forget about encryption and just think about what it's trying to achieve.
You and a server need to communicate with each other.
(And by "you", I mean "your computer".)
They need to be able to see the information you send them, and you need to be able to
see the information they send you.
No one else should be able to see any of these messages.
But what's stopping an eavesdropper from taking your messages
and making copies for themselves?
Not much.
So what if you scramble your messages?
Write them in a secret code.
Okay, then how are you and the server supposed to unscramble each other's messages?
If you tell each other how to unscramble them, then the eavesdropper knows
how to unscramble them too, and all of this is pointless.
You and the server need to know something that no one else does.
Ok let's give that a go.
Let's say that we scramble our data and incorporate a special number into the exact
way that we scramble it.
We do this in a way that you need that special number in order to unscramble it afterward.
Since this number is used to "lock" and "unlock" the data, let's call it a "key".
This key is a secret so we can't pass it through the internet for eavesdroppers to see.
Otherwise, they would be able to unscramble our messages.
But what about you and the server?
Without access to each other's key, how are you supposed to
unscramble each other's messages?
Here's how we get around this problem today.
Say that you want to send the server some private information.
The server has two special keys.
The public key can only be used to scramble information, no unscrambling.
So it's safe to send you that key, so you can scramble your secrets
before you send them along.
Even if the eavesdropper makes their own copy of the public key,
it's useless against a scrambled message.
So how does the server unscramble it?
It uses the private key.
This key is super-secret and no one but the server should ever have it, not even you.
This private key was custom-made to unscramble messages
which this particular public key scrambled.
These keys always come it pairs.
One of them can only scramble, and the other can only unscramble messages
that were scrambled by the first one.
Now, calling both these numbers "keys" might be a bad analogy, since keys can typically
both lock and unlock.
That's why I'm illustrating them as a padlock and a padlock key, since padlocks
can only lock, and its corresponding key can only unlock
that specific padlock.
And even this might be a bad analogy, since locking and unlocking messages
makes it seem like they're concealed inside a box or something,
when it's really more like blending it into something that looks meaningless,
but in such a way that the original message can be reconstructed if you have the right number.
Anyway, I'm stealing the padlock analogy from this numberphile video,
which goes into a bit more detail on how all of this works.
The short version is: Because math!
So that covers how you can send the server secret information.
How does the server send you secret information?
You don't have the server's private key, so you can't unscramble messages that were
scrambled by its public key.
Instead, you generate your own unique, plain old, regular key on the spot
and send theserver a copy.
But, before you send the key through, you use the server's public key to scramble it.
The server can then get your key by unscrambling it.
Now you each of you can use this new key to both scramble and unscramble messages.
Even better, the eavesdroppers can't get this new key, since it was scrambled when
you sent it to the server.
Hooray it worked!
Now here's the problem.
Everything here rests on the fact that keys that can unlock messages are kept secret.
We only share them secretly in scrambled form if we ever need to.
But we are freely sharing the public key.
It turns out that given enough time, an eavesdropper's computer can analyse it
to create an exact copy of the corresponding private key.
They can essentially pick the lock.
This is done by guessing tons of potential private keys until a match is found.
There are some shortcuts, but the math behind these keys is designed
so that this would take forever anyway.
Luckily, we change our locks faster the than the eavesdropper can pick them.
The fastest algorithms for doing this key reconstruction are just too slow
to be of any practical use.
So the eavesdropper won't find your private key unless you're astronomically unlucky.
There are theoretically faster algorithms that would do the job though.
But luckily they can only run on quantum computers.
Wait a minute, those are probably coming soon aren't they?
So, once again…
Are we DOOMED???
Possibly not.
There is an initiative to create new encryption standards
in a world after quantum computers become a thing: Post-Quantum Cryptography.
Here's the basic idea.
Public-private keys must behave as one-way functions.
Given a private key, it's easy to create its corresponding public key,
but given a public key, it's hard to create its corresponding private key.
It's a real pain to go backwards, hence it is one-way.
By design, at least one of these processes should be easy,
otherwise we wouldn't be able to create these key pairs in the first place.
After all, what's the point of designing the perfect padlock with no way to open it,
or the perfect padlock key with nothing for it to open?
Making this process easy ensures that we can always make a useful pair.
The hard part here is the critical point of this mechanism.
This makes it possible to let everybody encrypt messages but only some people decrypt them.
You can't decrypt messages without the private key, and it's hard to get it,
even when you have the public key.
And that is next to impossible in practice.
You might be wondering why we can't just make it impossible to go backwards.
It's because there will always be at least one way to get the private key from the public key:
going through every single possibility until a match is found.
The best thing that we can do is make the backwards process as hard as we can,
while keeping the forward process easy.
This is how one-way functions work, and they're the best thing we have so far.
Unfortunately, the particular one-way function that most of the internet uses can be broken
by quantum computers.
They make it easy to get the private key, but only because there happens to be algorithm
to do it that performs very well when it's run on a quantum computer.
To solve this problem with existing technology, new mechanisms could be built on different
one-way functions, particularly ones that no one knows how to break
even with quantum computers.
That would keep this process easy, this process hard.
This is good in the shorter term, but we can do better.
Surprisingly, quantum computers themselves come to save the day.
They can let us do things with security that not even public-private keys can do.
Welcome to Quantum Cryptography.
Conventional computers use bits which can each be either 1 or 0.
Quantum computers use qubits, which can be 1 or 0 or some combination of the two.
Let's visually represent qubits with this diagram, which I like to call the Bloch circle.
It's a simplified version of something else called the Bloch sphere,
but we don't need it for this video.
Now, in the Bloch circle, the direction that this arrow is pointing represents the state the qubit is in.
When we try to read a qubit, we need to choose a direction to measure it in.
If we measure it in the vertical orientation, we'll say that it's a zero whenever the
arrow points this way, and a 1 whenever the arrow points this way.
If the qubit was in some non-vertical state, our measurement forces the qubit to choose
one of them, ...because quantum mechanics!
If it was in a horizontal state, there's a 50-50 chance of it being measured as 0 or 1.
But if we wanted, we could have measured it horizontally.
In this case, this would be a 0, this would be a 1, and
these would be 50-50 chances.
But what's the point of leaving it up to chance anyway?
Why not just measure vertically when it's vertical, and horizontally when it's horizontal?
Because we can't know if a given qubit is vertical or horizontal,
unless we made it ourselves. ourselves.
The only way for us to learn anything about it is to measure it, but the harsh reality
is that measurement might have changed it to something else.
Because quantum mechanics!
Now all of this might look really useless at first, but we can actually use these qubits
to generate keys and actually detect if someone is trying to eavesdrop.
Here's how it could work.
The server generates a random string of 1s and 0s.
We're gonna use these ones and zeros to make a key.
The server encodes these bits into qubits
by randomly choosing a vertical or horizontal orientation.
These qubits are then sent down a line that supports transmission of qubits, and you receive them.
Now, you don't know which qubits are vertical and which are horizontal, so you randomly guess,
measuring some of them vertically and others horizontally.
Each time, you have a 50-50 chance of guessing right since there are only two possible orientations
and you have to pick one of them.
If you do guess right, that bit will be the same for you as it is for the server.
If you guess wrong, that bit has at risk of being wrong.
Now, you have your own random string of 1s and 0s, but it's not exactly the same as
the server's string because of your wrong guesses.
To throw out the useless bits, you and the server compare the orientations
you used for each bit, and throw out the mismatches.
Even if an eavesdropper drops in to peek at the orientations used to make the measurements,
they won't know what the measurements were.
Now, you and the server each have copies of the same key
that you can both use to scramble and unscramble messages.
But why did the server make you guess what the orientations were?
Why couldn't the server just give them to you so you wouldn't need to guess?
Because it would have given away too much information for eavesdroppers looking at our qubits.
If you can perfectly guess the server's bits, so can an eavesdropper.
But adding a little uncertainty trips them up.
Let's see how it plays out.
Once again, the server generates a random bit sequence and encodes it in random orientations.
Now the server sends you the qubits, but the eavesdropper catches them along the way.
The eavesdropper must act quickly.
They need to measure the qubits and then send them back down to you
so you don't notice anything wrong.
But the eavesdropper doesn't know whether to measure vertically or horizontally.
If they guess wrong, the qubit changes.
Plus, they wouldn't even know if they guessed right or wrong in the first place, so they
can't fix their mistakes.
Maybe, they could make copies of the qubits, send one copy to you so you don't notice
anything wrong, and then try all sorts of different measurements
on their own copies to figure out what the qubits were.
Too bad they would need to break the laws of physics to do that.
A principle of quantum mechanics known as the no-cloning-theorem tells us that you can't
make copies of qubits if you don't already know what they are.
If the eavesdropper wants to know anything at all,
they need to measure the qubits.
And unfortunately for them, that means they either need to send you
contaminated qubits or dummy qubits of their own.
Even if the eavesdropper eventually sees you and the server
saying which orientations they should have used, it's too late for them.
Unless they happened to guess the orientation correctly every single time you guessed correctly,
or if by pure chance, the qubits collapsed to the right values anyway,
you and the server will end up with different numbers.
And taking a guess on all of your qubits is pretty much the worst strategy ever.
But how do you and the server know if the eavesdropper was messing with the qubits?
How do you know if these bits are safe to use?
You randomly pick half of your bits to compare.
If they're the same, you and the server know that
the other half is the same as well, unless you're astronomically unlucky.
But to better your odds, you use more qubits so small mistakes from
the eavesdropper are more likely to be noticed.
If you ever notice a problem, you toss everything out and try again.
Hopefully the eavesdropper will respect your privacy this time.
And if they don't, try a different communication channel.
This is known as the BB84 protocol.
It's one of the simpler ways of distributing quantum keys.
There's another one called the E91 protocol that takes advantage of quantum entanglement.
This one is a little more complicated.
First of all, instead of the server generating a random bit sequence,
you both receive half of a bunch of entangled qubits from a trusted third party.
You and the server then randomly pick from 3 orientations to measure your own half.
You then compare orientations, and note the ones that were the same.
But instead of throwing the rest of them away,
you can use the mismatches to check for an eavesdropper.
You know there was an eavesdropper if something called Bell's inequality was satisfied.
If Bell's inequality was not satisfied, it means that there was no eavesdropping, and
the key is safe to use.
Of course these protocols aren't perfect.
They rely on accurate transmission of qubits, which doesn't always happen in the real world.
So in reality, you need to sacrifice a bit more information
to do error correction.
And that's assuming you can even send qubits in the first place.
The existing infrastructure of the internet cannot.
But small quantum networks are being built.
They have all even successfully performed the BB84 protocol.
In addition, these protocols also don't fix all the problems the classical ones have.
For instance, man-in-the-middle attacks are still possible, where the eavesdropper impersonates
both you and the server, so neither of you notice anything wrong.
Denial of service attacks still are possible by simply "eavesdropping" on purpose.
The eavesdropper will be detected every time, but you and the server will never be able
to make a key, and thus can't communicate securely.
The solutions to these problems may involve broader fields,
such as authentication and networking.
In the end, quantum computers are a double edged sword, at least in the world of security.
They break our current system, but they open the door for more advanced ones.
But isn't that pointless?
Why develop quantum computers in the first place if they break and then re-solve the same problem?
Why the trouble?
It's because they open up new possibilities.
Breaking security is just one of many things they can do.
They can also improve database performance, and give us more accurate simulations of quantum mechanics,
which could accelerate research in medicine
or other technologies.
Every new discovery comes with opportunity and costs.
We can't complain when the eavesdroppers are just using superior tech to our own.
The threat is real, but people believe in advancing science and technology,
because of its potential to improve our lives. Sometimes...
we just need to keep up with it.
Oh no...
The video intro's out of date!
For more infomation >> La bruja Zulema asegura que esta sombra es Satanás | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 2:41. 
For more infomation >> Críticas a Kendall Jenner por comercial de Pepsi | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 0:36. 
For more infomation >> Indignación en la familia de Jenni Rivera | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 1:42. 
For more infomation >> Alcalde de Guerrero en problemas por auto lujoso | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Phim hay - Phim hoạt hình - Quà tặng cuộc sống - SỰ TÍCH TRÁI SẦU RIÊNG ► Phim hoạt hình hay 2017 - Duration: 16:01. 
For more infomation >> Disfraz de muro fronterizo causa indignación | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 2:10. 
For more infomation >> El Loco Valdés enfrenta un tumor maligno | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 0:43. 
For more infomation >> Ximena Duque presume en video amor por su prometido | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 0:49. 
For more infomation >> Arturo Peniche y su esposa fueron asaltados | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 0:33. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét