Efficient mediated semi-quantum key distribution
Introduction
Quantum key distribution (QKD) allows two quantum participants to establish a secret key securely by using the principles of quantum mechanics. Since the first QKD protocol was proposed by Bennett and Brassard [1], various QKD protocols are proposed subsequently [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. However, in all these QKD protocols, both participants are required to have much quantum capability such as preparing and measuring states in two different bases. Actually quantum resources are not easy to obtain under current technology and it may be unnecessary for both two participants to own many quantum resources to share a key. In 2007, Boyer et al. proposed the first semi-quantum key distribution (SQKD) protocol which reduced the quantum capability of one participant compared with QKD protocols [11]. The SQKD protocol allows a “classical” participant with limited quantum capability to share a secret key securely with a trusted quantum participant. A “classical” participant means one can only perform some of the following four operations: (1) preparing qubits in the basis {}, (2) measuring qubits in the basis {}, (3) reflecting qubits without disturbance, and (4) reordering the qubits. In 2009, Boyer et al. presented a novel SQKD protocol by employing four quantum states as resource states [12], each of which was randomly prepared in the or basis. In the same year, five SQKD protocols were proposed by Zou et al. with less than four quantum states [13]. Then, Wang et al. put forward a SQKD protocol which employed entangled states as resource states and improved the qubit efficiency to 50% [14]. In 2014, Yu et al. proposed an authenticated SQKD protocol which used Bell states and was unnecessary to have access to authenticated classical channels [15]. Since then, many SQKD protocols have been proposed [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] and the security of them has been investigated [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. In addition, other kinds of semi-quantum cryptographic protocols were also studied, such as semi-quantum secret sharing [32], [33], [34], semi-quantum communication [35], [36], and semi-quantum private comparisons [37], [38]. But in all the semi-quantum cryptographic protocols mentioned above, only one of the two participants is “classical”.
A mediated semi-quantum key distribution (MSQKD) protocol permits two “classical” participants to share a secret key securely with the help of an untrusted quantum third party (TP). The main difference between the QKD, SQKD, and MSQKD protocol is that the MSQKD protocol is more suitable when both two participants owning limited quantum capability want to share a key. In 2015, Krawec proposed a MSQKD protocol where TP required to prepare Bell states and two “classical” participants need to measure qubits in the basis [39]. In 2018, Liu et al. removed the quantum measurement capability of both “classical” participants and presented a MSQKD protocol [40]. But TP needs to prepare Bell states as resource states. In 2019, Lin et al. proposed a MSQKD protocol which used single photons as resource states [41]. But the qubit efficiency of this protocol was only . Recently, Massa et al. proposed a novel MSQKD protocol where “classical” participants just need to have access to superimposed single photon as a feasible quantum resource and realized it in the experiment [42].
In this paper, we propose an efficient MSQKD protocol where the quantum capability of TP will be lessened and two “classical” participants still only need to make measurements in the basis and produce quantum states and . The rest part of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a MSQKD protocol is proposed. Section 3 analyzes the security of the proposed protocol in the ideal situation. Comparisons among similar MSQKD protocols are made in Section 4. The last section concludes the paper.
Section snippets
The proposed MSQKD protocol
Suppose two “classical” participants Alice and Bob want to share a secret key with the help of an untrusted TP. Quantum channels between them are assumed to be ideal with no noise and the classical channel between Alice and Bob is supposed to be authenticated. A detailed description of the proposed protocol is given in the following.
Step 1: TP generates 2 qubits and sends all of them to Alice one by one. Note that the state of each qubit is .
Step 2: When Alice receives a qubit from TP, she
Security analysis
In this section, we show that the proposed protocol can resist two specific kinds of attack, namely the measurement attack and the faked states attack, and it also can prevent the general collective attack. Although not all kinds of attacks are covered, most of typical ones which are usually analyzed in MSQKD protocols are considered. Because an untrusted TP is involved in the protocol and he may be more powerful than any other eavesdropper to attack the protocol, we just consider the worst
Comparisons
In this section, comparisons among similar MSQKD protocols, such as Krawec’s protocol [39], Liu’s protocol [40], Lin’s protocol [41], and the proposed MSQKD protocol are made from the following three aspects: TP’s ability, two “classical” participants’ ability, and qubit efficiency which means here the ratio of the number of raw key bits to that of the total qubits being used. In Krawec’s protocol [39] and Liu’s protocol [40], TP needs to do the Bell measurement and prepare Bell states. In
Discussion and conclusion
In this paper, we have proposed an efficient MSQKD protocol where the “classical” participants can establish a secret key securely with the help of an untrusted TP. The quantum capability of TP is more limited than existing similar MSQKD protocols and the qubit efficiency remains not low. The proposed protocol has been proven to be secure against the measurement attack, the faked states attack, and especially the collective attack in a more formal way. But we show it is secure in an ideal
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lingli Chen: Investigation, Writing – original draft. Qin Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Chengdong Liu: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Yu Peng: Writing – review & editing. Fang Yu: Methodology, Discussion.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Key Project of Hunan Province Education Department, China (Grant No. 20A471), the Joint Funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China General Technology Research Institute (Grant No. U1736113), and Hunan Province Science and Technology Project Funds, China (Grant No. 2018TP1036). F. Yu is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China (Grant No. 21617402).
References (46)
- et al.
Novel quantum key distribution with shift operations based on Fibonacci and Lucas valued orbital angular momentum entangled states
Physica A
(2020) - et al.
Security of a single-state semi-quantum key distribution protocol
Quantum Inf. Process.
(2018) - et al.
Limited resource semiquantum secret sharing
Quantum Inf. Process.
(2018) - et al.
Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing
- et al.
Decoy state quantum key distribution
Phys. Rev. Lett.
(2005) - et al.
Theoretically efficient high-capacity quantum-key-distribution scheme
Phys. Rev. A
(2002) - et al.
No signaling and quantum key distribution
Phys. Rev. Lett.
(2005) Security of quantum key distribution
Int. J. Quantum. Inf.
(2008)- et al.
Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol
Phys. Rev. Lett.
(2000) - et al.
Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution
Phys. Rev. Lett.
(2012)