Noisy processing and distillation of private quantum States.

We provide a simple security proof for prepare and measure quantum key distribution protocols employing noisy processing and one-way postprocessing of the key. This is achieved by showing that the security of such a protocol is equivalent to that of an associated key distribution protocol in which, instead of the usual maximally entangled states, a more general private state is distilled. In addition to a more general target state, the usual entanglement distillation tools are employed (in particular, Calderbank-Shor-Steane-like codes), with the crucial difference that noisy processing allows some phase errors to be left uncorrected without compromising the privacy of the key.

[1]  Hoi-Kwong Lo,et al.  Proof of unconditional security of six-state quantum key distribution scheme , 2001, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[2]  H. Lo.  Method for decoupling error correction from privacy amplification , 2002, quant-ph/0201030.

[3]  Hoi-Kwong Lo,et al.  Proof of security of quantum key distribution with two-way classical communications , 2001, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[4]  R. Renner,et al.  A de Finetti representation for finite symmetric quantum states , 2004, quant-ph/0410229.

[5]  R. Renner,et al.  Information-theoretic security proof for quantum-key-distribution protocols , 2005, quant-ph/0502064.

[6]  Hans Aschauer,et al.  Security proof of quantum cryptography based entirely on entanglement purification , 2001, quant-ph/0111066.

[7]  Karol Horodecki,et al.  Quantum key distribution based on arbitrarily weak distillable entangled states. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[8]  John Preskill,et al.  Secure quantum key distribution using squeezed states , 2001 .

[9]  Masato Koashi,et al.  Unconditionally secure key distribution based on two nonorthogonal states. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[10]  Shor,et al.  Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol , 2000, Physical review letters.

[11]  Jeroen van de Graaf,et al.  Cryptographic Distinguishability Measures for Quantum-Mechanical States , 1997, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[12]  William K. Wootters,et al.  A ‘Pretty Good’ Measurement for Distinguishing Quantum States , 1994 .

[13]  P. Shor,et al.  QUANTUM-CHANNEL CAPACITY OF VERY NOISY CHANNELS , 1997, quant-ph/9706061.

[14]  J. Oppenheim,et al.  Secure key from bound entanglement. , 2003, Physical Review Letters.

[15]  Robert König,et al.  Universally Composable Privacy Amplification Against Quantum Adversaries , 2004, TCC.

[16]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[17]  B Kraus,et al.  Lower and upper bounds on the secret-key rate for quantum key distribution protocols using one-way classical communication. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[18]  J-C Boileau,et al.  Unconditional security of a three state quantum key distribution protocol. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[19]  Schumacher,et al.  Classical information capacity of a quantum channel. , 1996, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[20]  Lo,et al.  Unconditional security of quantum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances , 1999, Science.

[21]  R. Renner,et al.  An information-theoretic security proof for QKD protocols , 2005, quant-ph/0502064.

[22]  Thierry Paul,et al.  Quantum computation and quantum information , 2007, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[23]  Debbie W. Leung,et al.  The Universal Composable Security of Quantum Key Distribution , 2004, TCC.

[24]  Markus Grassl,et al.  Generalized decoding, effective channels, and simplified security proofs in quantum key distribution , 2006 .