对冯浩论文《Kish的密钥交换方案是不安全的》的回应
Response to Feng Hao's paper "Kish's key exchange scheme is insecure"
摘要：
在即将发表在IEE Proceedings Information Security上的一篇论文中，Feng Hao声称温度的不准确性使得基于Kirchhoff Loop with Johnson-like Noise的密钥交换方案不安全。首先，我们指出，这种说法是不相关的安全性的理想化/数学通信，因为它违反了基本假设。此外，在一般的实际应用中，正如在第一篇论文中所指出的那样，使用热噪声是不利的，因此温度及其精度的问题即使对于常见的实际实现的安全性也是不重要的。需要强调的是，任何偏离理想化方案的情况都可能导致有限的安全级别。因此，如果上述作者强调电阻值的不准确性，他的主张实际上是有效的。然而，这种系统误差的影响可以保持在控制之下。在这里，我们引用我们的相关分析（物理。A 359，（2006）741-744），由于导线电阻效应，沿线路的1%的电压不准确度，这可以被认为是该量级的不准确度的一般结果。建立统计以在适当选择的时钟时间期间提取信息的必要性导致极差的窃听者统计，并且这种情况提供了良好的实际原始比特安全性，其可以是超出理想化量子通信器的原始比特安全性的数量级。
英文摘要：
In a forthcoming paper in IEE Proceedings Information Security, Feng Hao claims that temperature inaccuracies make the key exchange scheme based on Kirchhoff Loop with Johnson-like Noise insecure. First we point out that this claim is irrelevant for the security of the idealized/mathematical communicator because it violates basic assumptions. Furthermore, in general practical applications, as it has been pointed out in the very first paper, the use of thermal noise is disadvantageous therefore the issue of temperature and its accuracy is unimportant even for the security of common practical realizations. It is important to emphasize that any deviation from the idealized scheme can lead to a finite level of security. Thus, if the above-mentioned author had stressed the inaccuracy of the resistor values; his claim would have been practically valid. However the impact of such systematic errors can be kept under control. Here we cite our relevant analysis (Phys. Lett. A 359, (2006) 741-744) of 1% voltage inaccuracy along the line due to wire resistance effects, which can be considered as a general result for inaccuracies of this order. The necessity to build a statistics to extract information during the properly chosen clock time leads to extremely poor eavesdropper statistics and this situation provides a good practical raw bit security that can be orders of magnitude beyond the raw bit security of idealized quantum communicators.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
