<<

. 7
( 9)



>>

321 Freespace 206 198
322 Freespace 205 163
323 Freespace 205 161
324 Freespace 208 190
325 Freespace 208 196
772 Autocompensating Plug&Play 117 151
773 Autocompensating Plug&Play 128 151
774 Autocompensating Plug&Play 122 152
775 Autocompensating Plug&Play 122 153
776 Autocompensating Plug&Play 141 153
777 Autocompensating Plug&Play 151 155
778 Continuous Variables 272 419
779 Continuous Variables 244 334
780 Continuous Variables 331 329
781 Continuous Variables 372 404
782 Continuous Variables 286 321
783 Continuous Variables 456 323
1183 One Way Weak Pulse System 284 304
1184 One Way Weak Pulse System 283 311
1185 One Way Weak Pulse System 279 309
1186 One Way Weak Pulse System 286 318
1187 One Way Weak Pulse System 291 345
1188 One Way Weak Pulse System 283 345



on the quality of the QKD devices “Entangled,” “Freespace,” and “Autocompen-
sating Plug&Play.” However, it could be detected that temperature, humidity, sun-
shine duration, and global radiation have a low in¬‚uence on the quality of the QKD
devices “Continuous Variables” and “One Way Weak Pulse System.” For prediction
purposes it is much better to use the GLMM instead of the GLM.

References
1. Anderson, T.W.: On the distribution of the two-sample Cramer-von mises criterion. Ann.
Math. Stat. 33(3), 1148“1159 (1962) 128
2. Demidenko, E.: Mixed Models. WILEY, Hoboken, NJ (2004) 127
3. Fahrmeir, L., Kneip, T., Lang, S.: Regression. Springer Verlag, Berlin (2007) 126
4. Faraway, J.J.: Extending the Linear Model with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL
(2006) 124, 125, 126, 127, 142
5. Lessiak, K., Kollmitzer, C., Schauer, S., Pilz, J., Rass, S.: Statistical Analysis of QKD Net-
works in Real-life Environments. Third International Conference on Quantum, Nano and
Micro Technologies (2009) 128
7 Statistical Analysis of QKD Networks in Real-life Environment 149

6. McCullagh, P., Nelder, J.: Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed. Monographs on Statistics and
Applied Probability 37. Chapman & Hall, London (1989) 124, 125
7. Nelder, J.A., Wedderburn, R.: Generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 135(3), 370“384
(1972) 124
8. Pinheiro, J.C., Bates, D.M.: Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear
mixed-efffects model. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 4(1), 12“35 (1995) 127
9. Pinheiro, J.C., Bates, D.M.: Mixed Effects Models in s and s-plus. Springer Verlag, New York
(2000) 127
10. Poppe, A., Peev, M., Maurhart, O.: Outline of the SECOQC Quantum-Key-Distribution Net-
work in Vienna. Int. J. of Quant. Inf. 6(2), 209“218 (2008) 123
11. Sinha, S.K.: Robust analysis of generalized linear mixed models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99,
451“460 (2004) 127
12. Tierney, L., Kadane, J.B.: Accurate approximations for posterior moments and marginal den-
sities. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 82“86 (1986) 126
13. Verbeke, G., Molenberghs, G.: Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. Springer Verlag,
New York (2000) 126
14. Verbeke, G., Molenberghs, G.: Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. Springer Verlag, New
York (2005) 126
15. Wol¬nger, R., O™Connell, M.: Generalized linear mixed models: A pseudo-likelihood
approach. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 48, 233“243 (1993) 126
16. Wood, S.N.: Generalized Additive Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Ration, FL (2006) 127, 142
17. Zeger, S.L., Liang, K.Y., Albert, P.S.: Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating
equation approach. Biometrics 44(4), 1049“1060 (1988) 127
Chapter 8
QKD Networks Based on Q3P

O. Maurhart




This chapter explains how single QKD links can be connected together via Q3P
to form a QKD network. The term “network” emphasizes the need to interconnect
more than two nodes. In this network arbitrary user data is transmitted from and to
non-adjacent parties.
Here Q3P “ the Quantum Point-to-Point Protocol “ is described. This proto-
col expands the concepts of the well-known Point-to-Point Protocol (described in
[12]) enabling and extending its prime ideas to adopt them in a quantum cryptogra-
phy environment. Thus Q3P can guarantee information theoretical security between
nodes of a QKD network with respect to encryption and authentication.
Based on Q3P, additional protocols for routing and message transmission are
discussed which respond to QKD network differences in comparison to classical
ones. Availability of key material, considerations of resend mechanisms, and trusted
paths are among the properties which clearly separate QKD networks from other
network types.
The protocols presented have been designed and developed during the EU
founded SECOQC project and were successfully presented in Vienna, 2008
(see [9]).


8.1 QKD Networks
By means of QKD a shared secret key can be established on two sides, likely labeled
Alice and Bob. Furthermore, quantum cryptography provides mechanisms and tech-
niques to allow an eavesdropper (Eve) to be detected on the shared communication
media.
The various techniques involved in QKD always use a quantum channel to trans-
mit quantum information as well as a classical channel for further actions. In order
to successfully establish a key between Alice and Bob to be used for one-time-pad

O. Maurhart (B)
Safety & Security Department, Quantum Technologies, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology
GmbH, Lakeside B01A, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria, oliver.maurhart@ait.ac.at;
http://www.ait.ac.at



Maurhart, O.: QKD Networks Based on Q3P. Lect. Notes Phys. 797, 151“171 (2010)
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-04831-9 8
152 O. Maurhart

(OTP) and other cryptographic techniques of information theoretical security pro-
cessing a number of steps have to be undertaken. Recalling previous chapters of this
book to a bare minimum these are as follows:

• Sifting: This allows Alice and Bob to remove bits from their raw key due to
wrong basis choice. After this step Alice and Bob share a sifted key. There have
been various protocols developed in the recent years, starting with [1] and are
still emerging since new quantum technologies are still discovered requiring new
sifting protocols.
• Error Detection and Correction: Still there can be errors present in both keys.
This is due to some quantum bits that may have been damaged or ¬‚ipped during
transmission or quantum detection failures. Note that errors are also probably
introduced by an eavesdropper. Therefore the system has to decide whether the
detected errors can reasonably be found by technological and/or physical short-
comings or are introduced due to the presence of an attacker and more impor-
tantly whether relevant security limits are exceeded. If the error rate can still be
tolerated an error correction scheme is to be applied, otherwise the current key
distillation round has to be terminated and the results skipped. The most popu-
lar error correction technique is CASCADE, but other more re¬ned versions are
researched and uprising. The result of this step is a reconciled key.
• Privacy Ampli¬cation: An eavesdropper “ Eve “ is always expected. As Eve is
conservatively assumed to be the source of all errors occurring in the raw key
acquisition phase and is supposed to listen on the insecure public channel on
which the error correction steps above are performed, she may gather enough
knowledge to deduce part of the key. Hence Alice and Bob now try to minimize
Eve™s knowledge by appropriately reducing the length of the reconciled key. After
this step Alice and Bob have a shared secret key.

However, the bene¬t of QKD is restricted to a common shared quantum media.
Therefore the key distillation steps described above are only applicable on a peer-
to-peer basis, where Alice and Bob have access to the same quantum media. Also
with respect to different quantum techniques key establishment may be expensive
both in time and computational resources.
QKD networks now try to exceed point-to-point limitations, enabling Alice to
send information to Bob without sharing a quantum channel. They are rather con-
nected along a path of intermediate nodes. Therefore a QKD network is described
by

• A quantum network consists of nodes connected by quantum channels. The qual-
ity and design of the quantum channels are limited by the certain technology
used at and the physical attributes they impose. Therefore, quantum networks
may be composed of quantum channels of different kind regarding distance and
bandwidth compared to cost to establish and maintain.
• All nodes are connected to a classical communication media, which ought to be
public and insecure. The nodes need this media for their speci¬c QKD-protocols.
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 153

The issue, whether this media is the same or not as used for the quantum channel
(i.e., ¬ber optic), is irrelevant from a conceptional point of view.
• A quantum channel itself is always a point-to-point link between exactly two
nodes. One-to-many links are seen as multiple logical point-to-point links in spa-
tial or time division manner. Routing protocols on top bypass the peer-to-peer
limitations and enforce multi- and broadcast capabilities on the system.
• A quantum network node may participate in more than one, single quantum chan-
nel, thus making it a relay station.
• Messages between two adjacent nodes can be transferred with information theo-
retical security using at least one-time-pad cipher for encryption on the classical
channel.
• Messages between two adjacent nodes can be authenticated with information the-
oretical security.

This results in delivering a message on a hop-by-hop basis as illustrated in
Fig. 8.1. On receiving, each node decrypts the message using a local key shared
with its neighbor and then retransmits it with a key it has for its other neighbor. The
keys are discarded thereafter. Exhibiting such behavior quali¬es QKD nodes to be
viewed as “Store & Forward” network devices.




Node Node Node Node

Fig. 8.1 Hop-by-hop transmission of a message between nodes


Having such a set of interconnected QKD nodes which transmit messages on
a hop-by-hop basis constitutes to a trusted repeater QKD network. Topologies of
such networks include mesh- and starlike networks. Within a trusted repeater QKD
network, keys are shared between two parties along a path of intermediate and trust-
worthy nodes. This is opposed to quantum switching network in which the quantum
channel is switched. The later model does connect more than two peers but is bound
in distance. As QKD switched networks create selective point-to-point connections
on demand by short-circuiting QKD channels, attenuation is seen as a major concern
and problem. With the help of trusted repeaters any number of participating users
connected across arbitrary distances can share secrets on a QKD network.
Obviously a trusted repeater QKD network can be built using more than one
single QKD technology. The requirement to integrate different QKD techniques and
methods into one single network interconnecting more than two users is indispens-
able to realize trusted repeater QKD networks. This reasons the need for a layer to be
introduced which separates key usage from the technical details of key generation.
This is much like today™s Internet in which the client browser does not care about
the concrete transport technique (Ethernet, WLAN, ...). This layering is solved by
Q3P.
154 O. Maurhart

The prime building block of a quantum network is Q3P. As Q3P itself is deeply
inspired by PPP, the classical, traditional protocol for interconnecting two machines,
a brief summary of PPP has to be stated.


8.2 PPP
The Point-to-Point Protocol [12] standardized 1994 is used to establish a connection
between two nodes in a network. It is primarily used as dial-up connection mech-
anism and superseded the former SLIP [11]. SLIP lacked error detection and was
bound to serial lines as well to IP messaging solely.
PPP holds
• Encapsulation of various datagram protocols like IP, IPX, and AppleTalk
• Error Detection
• Link Control Mechanism
• Authentication
PPP does not rely on a certain connection technology as SLIP does (serial line).
Instead PPP imposes a few requirements on the lower layer:
• The link provides full-duplex simultaneous bi-directional operation.
• All packets arrive in order at the responder side (in-order delivery).
PPP enforces no sequencing or fragmentation on packets which requires a collec-
tion and reordering facility at the responder side. PPP does not expect this options
of the lower layer requiring to send information packed in one single PPP frame.
However, information datagrams of higher layers can be distributed across several
packets but it is the responsibility of the higher level protocol to reassemble the
fragments orderly.
The feature list of PPP is as follows:
• Encapsulation: PPP is capable of encapsulating various protocols situated at the
next higher layer when speaking in terms of the ISO/OSI model [13]. The list of
encapsulated protocols includes IP, IPX, AppleTalk, and others. The mechanism
provided in PPP is of a much general term, allowing any arbitrary protocol to be
used within PPP.
• Link Control Protocol (LCP): a major part of PPP is dedicated to establish and
con¬gure the link.
• Network Control Protocol (NCP): to be independent of any succeeding network
protocol running on top of PPP, a framework for negotiating several aspects and
options of the higher protocol is presented. For each network protocol collaborat-
ing with PPP a speci¬c NCP is written, i.e., IPCP “ the Internet Protocol Control
Protocol for IP [7].
PPP is used as a layer 2 protocol for the well-known ISO/OSI reference model
but is also implemented on top of already existing layer 2 protocols like PPPoE [6]
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 155

“ “Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet” “, PPtP [4] “ “Point-to-Point Tunneling
Protocol,” “ and PPPoA [3] “ “Point-to-Point Protocol over ATM.”
The intention of PPP is to be self-con¬guring and functionable right out-of-the
box. Simplicity in maintenance and con¬guration and ¬‚exibility and expandability
are key terms of PPP.


8.3 Q3P

Q3P is the Quantum Point-to-Point Protocol. Q3P uses the ideas in the well-known
PPP to form a PPP-like protocol between two adjacent nodes in a quantum network.
The whole Q3P design serves different aspects:

• Provide a communication primitive between exactly two adjacent nodes in a
quantum network to enable sending and receiving of messages enhanced by infor-
mation theoretical security.
• Enforce overall security of a QKD node by being the very single but neat interface
to the outside world on the classical channel.
• Utilize different and yet even unknown QKD protocols and devices for key gen-
eration.
• Utilize different and yet even unknown cryptographic algorithms for information
theoretical security for encryption and authentication.
• Separate key production from key usage. Even more: leverage Quality of Service
methods on key usage regardless of any concrete QKD machine producing them.

With respect to some ISO/OSI-like hierarchical structure, viewed “from top”
Q3P offers the very same interface of level 2 regardless of any concrete quantum
technique used underneath. This is required to build stable network protocols on top
of it without the need to tackle with QKD implementation speci¬cs and quirks.


8.3.1 Q3P Building Blocks
Figure 8.2 shows the very basic setup for a Q3P implementation. The setup shown
consists of two QKD devices, a Q3P engine, a classical channel, and an application
using Q3P facilities (information theoretical secure encryption and authentication to
another direct connected peer). The central point is that both “ the QKD devices and
the application “ use Q3P to communicate with their peers on the classical, public
channel. The Q3P engine acts as a singleton, that is: there must be only one single
instance in a system running.
The sketch shows two instances of QKD devices, each of them having their own
dedicated quantum channel. It is possible to connect more than one QKD device
to a single Q3P engine. Having more than one QKD device connected to a Q3P
engine opens up multiple connections to different peers, the basic building block for
a network.
156 O. Maurhart



Application
Application

Q3P engine
Q3P engine
Public




Classical
Channel
Classical
Channel
channel



Quantum
channel
QKD device
QKD device
QKD device
QKD device Quantum
channel

Fig. 8.2 The “Q3P Engine” where all Q3P processing takes place


Examining the Q3P engine further we see:
1. The Q3P node. This entity represents administration and coordination unit. It
creates Q3P link entities on demand. Whenever a connection from the outside “
be it from a QKD device, a peer Q3P node or any application utilizing Q3P “
is made the Q3P node is the very ¬rst to be contacted. It dispatches requests
and commands to the proper Q3P link processes. As the node is responsible for
creating the Q3P link instances it also observes, terminates, and relaunches them
as appropriate.
2. The Q3P link. A Q3P link is a concrete instance of an established connection
between two peers. The Q3P link entity is responsible for encryption, authen-
tication, and authentication check. A single Q3P link instance serves all QKD
to QKD connections between two nodes. That is, on Q3P node A and node B,
we attach an arbitrary number of QKD devices and interconnect them each: still
there is only one single Q3P link instance serving all QKD to QKD connec-
tions. Any messages which are sent and received by Q3P pass a Q3P link to get
encrypted and authenticated or authentication checked and decrypted, respec-
tively. As all messages are passed through this instance a Q3P link maintains
Channels for each application to application (or QKD device to QKD device)
communication line (Fig. 8.3).
3. The Key Store. Each Q3P link has an associated Key Store which buffers avail-
able key material for future use. Key Stores receive their key material from the
QKD devices underneath. However, once a key has been delivered to such Key
Stores any tags of information, stating the origin of the key material or the con-
crete date and time when it has been created, are removed. As such, a quantum
key is nothing but a bitstream with quantum cryptography-based randomness.
4. Crypto Engine. The Crypto Engine acts as a container for any security “ or
more precisely cryptographic “ relevant algorithms. Whereas OTP is rather
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 157




1 1
1
*
1

*
1 *


1 1




1

1
*

1




Fig. 8.3 Q3P class diagram in UML


trivial, information theoretical authentication is not. The Crypto Engine is capa-
ble of running different authentications with different tag sizes in parallel. This is
achieved by creating Crypto Contexts dedicated either to the realm of encryption
or authentication. Each channel has access to its unique encryption and authen-
tication context.


8.3.2 Message-Based Streaming

Q3P connects two adjacent nodes. Such communication line which is hold up by
the Q3P link entities on both sides is called a Q3P Association. A single Q3P Asso-
ciation serves more than one single application or QKD device. Each pair of QKD
devices or applications utilizing a Q3P Association maintain a set of Q3P Con-
nections. That is to say: a single Q3P Connection interconnects two QKD devices
(or two applications, respectively). As QKD devices and applications may wish to
send and receive in parallel each Q3P Connection can be further divided into Q3P
Channels. It is these Q3P Channels to which cryptographic routines are attached
and operated on.
Q3P is a message-stream based protocol. A single unit of communication for
Q3P is a message. This is different for well-established protocols like TCP (see
158 O. Maurhart

[10]) for they are byte-streamed. Byte-streamed based protocols work on streams of
bytes without interpretation of these streams in any way. On the other side, appli-
cations do have special semantics and meanings introduced into such byte-streams.
Hence, even a video-stream encoded as MPEG or a VoIP-stream is split into several
“messages.” In order to preserve the message semantics each application utilizing
a byte-streamed based protocol has to undertake additional steps to signal message
starting and ending to its peer. For message-based protocols this is not needed. And
for Q3P this comes natural since for a security centric protocol the key element for
encryption and authentication schemes widely used is a message, not a byte-stream.
A message is de¬ned as a sequence of bytes having a well-de¬ned starting and
ending position within the transport mechanism delivering the information. Further
on “ for Q3P “ a message is not been interpreted; the message™s content is of no con-
cern to Q3P. However, messages are uniquely identi¬able over a reasonable period
of time. Ideally, there is no number clash of a message™s ID during the lifetime of
an established Q3P Connection. The size of a message is not limited and may vary,
but performance considerations and hardware do impose restrictions.
The disadvantage of using a message-based view resides in the “store and for-
ward” principle of nearly all networking facilities. When sending a message the
receiver waits till the whole message arrived and then dispatches it for next com-
putation (or routing). When messages are rather large then the transmission delay,
the timespan encountered between receiving the very ¬rst byte of the message to the
very last one, is as large as well. Thus enlarging the overall delay in communication.
However, knowing this, applications have the capability to increase (and reduce)
performance on their own, by splitting their information into smaller messages and
even drop some if their content does not provide essential meaning but simply
increases quality of the data perceived. This is de¬nitively true for media streams
like MPEG which may drop B- and P-Frames off the whole message stream.
As Q3P has no knowledge of the concrete content of a message, it cannot decide
which message can be dropped or not. Leaving this capability to entities having the
knowledge of the concrete content of a message liberates Q3P to marginally rebuild
parts of higher level protocols (Fig. 8.4).


8.3.3 Security Modes

The main goal of Q3P is to enforce a transmission of any messages by means of
information theoretical security between two nodes. Q3P offers to send messages
with these schemes:

• encrypted and authenticated
• authenticated
• plain

This is very contrary to most established security-focused network protocols like
IPSec (IPSec starting with [5] and ongoing). Common security architectures within
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 159

a)
Application Application
Application Application
QKD Device QKD Device
QKD Device QKD Device
QKD Device QKD Device
QKD Device
Q3P node Q3P node
Q3P node Q3P node




Q3P link




Q3P link
Q3P link




Q3P link
Q3P link Q3P link



Association



Q3P link


Q3P link
Q3P link
Q3P node
Q3P node
Application
Application
QKD Device
QKD Device
QKD Device
b)
Application




Q3P node
Application




Q3P node Association
Q3P link
Q3P link

Channels
QKD Device
QKD Device




Connection




Fig. 8.4 Relationship between Q3P Associations, Q3P Connections, and Q3P Channels. (a) shows
three Q3P nodes interconnected by their Q3P link instances via Q3P Associations. On each Q3P
node an application and two QKD devices are attached communicating with their peers. (b) shows
the situation on one single Q3P node: an application has a connection established. Within this Q3P
Connection it utilizes two Channels. On the very same Association a QKD device has another
Connection but with three Channels up and running



the networking community usually introduce an all-or-nothing principle whereas
either the whole communication is encrypted and authenticated or no encryption
and authentication is applied at all.
Secure transmission within Q3P is done by information theoretical security. As
for the time of writing no non-key consuming algorithm with information theoretical
secure quality is known, be it for encryption or be it for authentication. Therefore,
any key used for encryption and/or authentication when sending messages is wasted
if the message content is not of sensible nature for secrecy or integrity.
This is not a problem if QKD devices do produce much more keys than needed
by applications. But today quantum key material is a very scarce resource and has
to be used very sensitive. As bandwidth throughput is limited by the available key
material it is counterproductive to waste such keys on messages not sensitive enough
160 O. Maurhart

to be encrypted. This is the rationale in offering this variety of communication
schemes.
Another reason is this: let M be the message. The keys used if the message is to
be transmitted encrypted and authenticated are donated as k E for the encryption and
k A for the authentication. As for OTP |k E | = |M| and for any arbitrary information
theoretical secure authentication |k A | > 0 holds, clearly stating |M| < |k E | + |k A |;
with full encryption and authentication turned on, slightly more key bits are con-
sumed than transmitted.
As mentioned earlier Q3P acts also as the only interface for the QKD devices on
the classical channel and the latter use the classical channel to do their sifting, error
correction, and privacy ampli¬cation to produce a new key. Therefore, the sum of the
key material used for all messages exchanged to create a new key may now exceed
the length of the new key produced if encryption and authentication is activated for
each and every message. These results in having more key material consumed than
created by the generation process.
To avoid this effect Q3P offers the encryption and authentication combined
modes, authentication without encryption mode, and the plain mode without any
security attached. The latter two are reasonable whenever information has to be
exchanged of non-con¬dential nature. One even may omit authentication at all, if
the integrity of the information sent and received can be determined in future steps,
e.g., the application™s communication can be mapped on a transaction processing
concept.1
Another concern is authentication for many small messages. A huge load of small
messages to be authenticated is a characteristic of common QKD error correction
protocols like CASCADE. As QKD devices produce such messages and due to
the nature of some error correction algorithms lacking possibilities to accumulate
such messages and send them in once, another authentication scheme is introduced:
Delayed Authentication. This authentication technique is offered along the Instant
Authentication in which each and every message is authenticated at once.
Within Delayed Authentication (see Fig. 8.5), messages to be sent are locally
copied to an internal Q3P buffer and then transmitted across the network to the peer.
This particular transmission is not authenticated but sent in plain instead, consuming
no key material at all. Gradually, the Q3P authentication buffer is ¬lled with a series
of small messages as the QKD device communicates with its peer.
Finally, the device requests an authentication-buffer check from the Q3P imple-
mentation at a suitable position within its processing QKD protocol. Q3P now com-
putes the authentication tag and veri¬es this tag with the one received by the peer™s
Q3P. The result of this veri¬cation is responded back to the invoking QKD device.
If authentication succeeded the device can be sure that all buffered messages so far
were not altered by an adversary.

1 A transaction concept having the ACID “ Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability “
properties. A transaction has a clearly de¬ned starting point and a clearly de¬ned endpoint. Any
action undertaken between these two points does not have any consequence to the surrounding
environment until the full transaction is committed at the endpoint.
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 161




Fig. 8.5 Delayed Authentication. (a) shows the situation during normal message processing: all
messages are copied to the outbound buffer before sending. On receiving the message is copied
to the inbound buffer before handing out to the application (or QKD device). (b) illustrates the
authentication check: both applications have to issue an authentication check. This stops ordinary
message processing until the peer also ordered an authentication check as well. The authentication
check is then performed by the Q3P Link instance (Veri¬er) and the Q3P Channel is unblocked on
success again


Note that Q3P maintains a send and receive buffer for the delayed authentication
separately. When performing delayed authentication now the authentication check
is done for both directions, ingoing and outgoing at once. On receiving the inbound
message buffer tag from the peer in this process the local party can also decide if
information sent by it has been received untainted. This effect is quite uncommon in
today™s authentication protocols: giving the sender the ability to prove the authenti-
cation of the messages sent as well as the receiver. Though it seems that this design is
memory consuming, authentication algorithms usually act on message blocks mod-
ifying some intermediate state S. When ¬nalizing the authentication process some
additional computation is done on the intermediate state S. This hints the way for
memory optimization since for authentication algorithms which can be laid out this
way only S is of concern and the message blocks once computed can be discarded
for the authentication afterward.
Clearly, Q3P cannot state when such authentication checks have to be done. This
is up to the application for only it knows the concrete context and ¬nd a proper
position along its own, possibly proprietary application protocol. When doing OLTP
(Online Transaction Processing) such steps ought to be found right before or along
the COMMIT instruction.
162 O. Maurhart

Having the freedom of choice for a variety of several different security modes to
choose for a single Q3P Channel introduces responsibility as well. If Q3P receives
an authenticated message then it hands out the message if the authentication check
succeeds. If the latter fails the message is silently discarded. But Q3P cannot decide
whether a received message has to be encrypted, authenticated, or none of both in
advance without knowing the message context, e.g., a message has been received in
plain without any authentication tag attached. This must be checked by the appli-
cation by inspecting the mode ¬‚ags of a received message and comparing this to
the internal application protocol: Is an unauthenticated message acceptable at the
current stage of processing? Q3P has no means to tell if an unauthenticated mes-
sage should be received authenticated “ Q3P lacks the domain knowledge of the
concrete application protocol to decide. This is a drawback since now applications
are burdened with additional security checks introducing more responsibility on the
application designers when it comes to security.

8.3.4 The Key Store

At the very heart of Q3P is the Q3P Key Store. A Q3P Key Store differs from
any classical key storing and management infrastructure: once a key has been used,
it is ought to be discarded. This is certainly true for OTP encryption and for any
information theoretical authentication scheme currently used in Q3P.
These arguments request a total different approach than common public key sys-
tems or common symmetrical key buffers do imply “ because they usually do not
trash the key at ¬rst usage.
Four primitive functions have to be ful¬lled:

1. Store a key.
2. Shred a key. The key store removes a key quali¬ed by a given key identi¬er.
This is natural if the key has been used. The notion “to shred” indicates that
the key really has to be destroyed instead of simply “deleting” or “dropping”
a key. Shredding a key may ¬nd its limitations by operating system memory
management and by physical attributes of the memory media.
3. Retrieving a key. The key store offers a method to retrieve the next key with a
given length l. A second technique is to retrieve a key in the database based on a
key identi¬er.
4. Query the state of the key store. The key store has to give knowledge about
various internal states to enforce QoS. That is, the amount of key material within
the key store, statistics about recent key usage, and reasonable assumptions about
key material growth.

Keys are delivered by QKD devices. However, they may do that in any variation
of order. Next, the key material is used in symmetric key cryptographic algorithms
and thus is not prequali¬ed for any particular direction. When a party decides to
send something to its peer it takes any key. There is no direction of data ¬‚ow
attached to a key nor any speci¬c task label, like mutual dedication for encryption or
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 163




Fig. 8.6 Q3P Key store buffers: Pickup-stores, common store and in-out-buffers


authentication. To send and receive messages some keys are used. As the peer pro-
ceeds likewise clashes in key access are obvious leading to collisions when occa-
sionally both parties decide to send data utilizing the very same key.
To solve this problem, three strategies are subject of concern: (a) try and detect
collisions and, in case, recover, (b) use dedicated send and receive key material
buffers on key delivery of a QKD device, or (c) authorization of key handout.
Following the last two strategies the Q3P Key Store addresses these issues by intro-
ducing a Master“Slave relationship on multi-level key buffer.
Figure 8.6 depicts the several key buffers used in Q3P:
1. The key material pushed by the QKD devices is collected in the Pickup Stores.
Here the keys may appear in any order. Q3P periodically picks up key material
and veri¬es its existence with the peer.
2. Once it is assured that key material is present in both stores the keys are trans-
ferred to the Common Store. The Common Store represents a big mass of homo-
geneous key bits organized in blocks. Whereas keys found in the Pickup Stores
can be associated with a certain QKD device and thus may even have some cer-
tain properties attached, like the error rate when producing this key, time stamp
and others, keys in the Common Store don™t have this additional information:
key identi¬ers, time stamp, and any other attributes are detached. New keys
transferred to this store are merged with already existing key bits there. Though
key material is accessible by its BlockID at chunks of varying sizes.
3. The In-Out-Buffers hold key material dedicated for receiving and sending. Both
buffers are symmetrically interlocked with the peer™s buffers. That is, the In
Buffer is synchronized with the peer™s Out-Buffer and vice versa (see Fig. 8.7).
As opposed to the Pickup Store and the In-Out-Buffers the Common Store is the
only key buffer which is persistent. Both other key storage devices are transient,
meaning they are emptied at the start and at the end of a Q3P instance lifetime.
Any key material placed in the Pickup Stores or the In-/Out-Buffers is lost if Q3P
terminates. The Common Store places its key material on some media (e.g., Secured
164 O. Maurhart




Fig. 8.7 Interleaved Q3P In-Out-buffers

Hard Disk, Smart Card, ...). On starting the Common Store is reincarnated with
already collected and synchronized key material. This behavior is to some extent
crucial since authentication protocols depend on preshared secrets, which can be
now served from the Common Store.
In order to keep these buffers in synchronization, Q3P introduces a Master“Slave
relationship. One of the Key Stores in a Q3P Association is the Master, the second
the Slave. The central point thereby is that only the Master authorize key material
to be transferred from a key buffer to another one.
Among the protocols which are needed for the Key Store to function properly the
two most important subprotocols are described as follow. In order to transfer Key
Material from the Pickup Store to the Common Store the Master Key Store ignites
a STORE subprotocol.
Master Slave
| |
| MsgId-1, "STORE", |
| (PickupStoreID, KeyID, BlockID)+, AUTH |
|-------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| MsgId-2, "STORED", MsgId-1, |
| (PickupStoreID, KeyID, BlockID)*, AUTH |
| <------------------------------------------------|
| |
| MsgId-3, "ACKNOWLEDGE", MsgId-2, AUTH |
|-----------------------------------------------> |
| |
Q3P key Store 3-phase STORE subprotocol

The data sent from the Master to the Slave is a MsgId-1, holding a unique num-
ber for this message, a STORE command identi¬er, followed by a minimum of 1
(PickupStoreID, KeyID, BlockID) tuple addressing the Pickup Store, the key within
that Pickup Store and the BlockID to be assigned within the Common Store. The
message itself is authenticated with an AUTH tag.
On response the Slave issues another MsgId-2, the number for the Slave™s
response message, a STORED keyword, MsgId-1 pointing to the former message
of the Master for which this message is a response to, a series of (PickupStoreID,
KeyID, BlockID) tuples “ which may be empty “ and ¬nalized with another AUTH
tag.
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 165

Finally, the Master responses in the same manner with an ACKNOWLEDGE
keyword adding the message id of the Slave to which is an acknowledgment.
As the communication may break at any time the keys are not directly pushed
to the Common Store at once. At step 1 “ the Master sending the STORE com-
mand “ the Master Key Store holds the series of keys taken from the Pickup Stores
in suspense and does not place them in the Common Store now. On reception of
the STORE command, the Slave selects the keys he has and creates the answer
STORED command. However, the Slave pushes the keys to the Common Store but
labels them as potentially in sync with the Master™s Common Store. If the Master
receives now the STORED answer from the Slave, the Master knows that the Slave
has withdrawn these keys from the Pickup Store and therefore are present in the
Slave™s Common Store. The Master now writes the keys to the Common Store and
labels them as real in sync. As the Slave gets the ACKNOWLEDGE message from
the Master, he now relabels these keys in the Common Store as real in sync.
After the STORE subprotocol Master and Slave do have several keys which have
been pushed by the QKD devices in sync. But in order to utilize these keys they have
to be dedicated for a particular direction: inbound or outbound. Keys found in the
Out-Buffer are dedicated to be used for sending messages. Therefore, on sending
a key of suitable length is withdrawn from the Out-Buffer for encryption and/or
authentication. Contrary, the In-Buffer holds keys which are used for decryption
and authentication checks of received messages.
In order to fairly ¬ll these two buffers, Master and Slave observe their In-Buffer.
If the Master detects a shortage of key material in its In-Buffer it selects key material
from the Common Store which is labeled as real in sync and issues the Slave to load
this key material. This is done by the LOAD subprotocol. If the Slave encounters
shortage of its In-Buffer it sends the Master a request to initiate a LOAD subpro-
tocol but with different target Buffers. With a single LOAD command as many key
material as possible is to be loaded but not more than |CommonStor e|/2 . By
having d = |InBu f fer | ’ |OutBu f fer | “shortage” is present if d 0 on Master
side and d < 0 on Slave side. The In-/Out-Buffers do have a maximum capacity,
which may not be exceeded, since every key material present in these buffers is lost
if the system goes down. As the encryption key is taken from the Out-Buffer the
maximum length of a single message is de¬ned by this limit.

Master Slave
| |
| MsgId-1, "LOAD-REQUEST", Count, AUTH |
| <------------------------------------------------|
| |
| MsgId-2, "LOAD", Buffer, StartIndex, |
| BlockId+, AUTH |
|-------------------------------------------------> |
| |
| MsgId-3, "ACKNOWLEDGE", MsgId-2, AUTH |
| <------------------------------------------------|
| |
Q3P-Protocol: 3-phase LOAD subprotocol with Slave™s initiative
166 O. Maurhart

It is important to note that only the Master decides which key material is to be
distributed to which Buffer. Since the Master chooses only real in sync key material
he knows that this material must be present at the Slave™s side; the same is not true
for potentially in sync keys on the Master side. Also by observing the In-Buffer the
communication paradigm is receiver-driven: the sender may not send more informa-
tion than the receiver can compute; the receiver dictates the speed of transmission.
On startup the operator of a Q3P link decides which side becomes a Master and
which one the Slave. As preshared secrets are needed for the ¬rst authentication by
convention the Master picks up the ¬rst block of the Common Store and loads it into
its Out-Buffer and the second into its In-Buffer. The Slave does likewise vice versa.


8.3.5 Q3P Packet Layout

A Q3P packet is de¬ned as:
1 1 2 2 2 3
0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Length |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Msg-Nr |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Flags |Command| Channel |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |
| ... |
| Payload |
| ... |
| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |
| AUTH-Tag |
| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Key-ID |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Q3P packet layout

At ¬rst the length of the packet is given, including the total header and trailer,
followed by the message number. Next a ¬‚ag indicates if the message has been
encrypted and/or authenticated. The channel ¬eld holds the channel identi¬er. Then
we ¬nd the payload. If the encryption ¬‚ag is set the payload is the cipher else it
is the plaintext. Presence of the authentication ¬‚ag in the ¬‚ags ¬eld requires the
authentication tag to follow the payload part. Finally, the key identi¬er is added.
This key identi¬er points into the In- or corresponding Out-Buffer as an offset. As
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 167

encryption and authentication are always performed sequentially the address of one
continuous stream of keys in the buffer is suf¬cient.
Hence that the authentication tag may have varying sizes. The concrete authen-
tication algorithm to use and therefore the generated tag size must be set already
by the operator out-of-band on a per Association basis. Further, the packet does not
indicate the nature of the enclosed payload like a protocol ID or whatsoever. Q3P
requires the parties listening on the channels to understand and interpret the given
data and hands it out as-is.


8.4 Routing
With the help of Q3P, point-to-point connections are established which are capable
of sending and receiving messages in an information theoretical secure manner. Q3P
is now capable to encapsulate protocols; one can do this with the well-known IP
to achieve routing. But for dynamic routing each hop or node has to maintain its
routing tables and in order to establish some sort of QoS we have to examine known
interior gateway protocols like OSPF and adopt these to QKD needs.
When using OSPF (see [8]) messages about the current state of the network are
“announced” by so called LSA2 packets. These announcements are ¬‚ood periodi-
cally in the network to inform neighbor nodes of the current “best” routes. Each node
states its current costs to other nodes/networks it knows. Based on this information
the participating nodes can recalculate their routing tables to estimate the shortest
paths to known nodes/networks. “Shortest” actually means “cheapest” in terms of
cost, whereas the cost function should be ¬‚exible, taking key store capacities and
key generation rate into account. If no further action is undertaken each and every
LSA is authenticated and encrypted, which seems too much:
1. It is unclear to which extend LSA packets have to be encrypted. What can an
attacker do with the information about the link states of each QKD node?
2. As key consumption regarding encryption equals message size a constant key
consumption rate is ongoing without the network processing user data.
These and other issues are addressed by the QKD-NL “ Quantum Key Distribu-
tion - Network Layer “ protocol (see [2]).
As the messages are passed via Q3P we can choose to only authenticate the mes-
sages and not to encrypt them. This already leverages (2) although the background
key consumption of the network is not zero, since every LSA packet receives at least
an authentication tag. This tag costs for key consumption equals tag size and occurs
on every message sent.
We can further tweak background key consumption by shorten or lengthen the
announcement timespan. By enlarging the timespan we can spare key material
and lower network background key burning. However, the bigger the timespan the
slower network changes are propagated through the network and this may result

2 Link State Announcement
168 O. Maurhart

in inef¬cient network usage, since things may change quicker than communicated
or lots of failed connection attempt since nodes may not be present any longer as
suggested on the ingress side.
As opposed to standard OSPF the new QKD-NL protocol considers more than
one path to a destination node. This is done in order to achieve some kind of load
balancing. In OSPF the forwarding decision is based solely on the shortest path and
thus every packet addressing a certain network will pass through one single port.
In QKD-NL, however, a local load balancing is introduced. Along with the stan-
dard routing table an Extended Routing Table is present, which lists all costs from
one node to each target nodes in increasing magnitude of cost. Next a Load State
Database keeps track of the approximated load of each outgoing link. Whenever a
packet is to be transmitted the Load State Database is looked up and if the local load
of the outgoing link is below a threshold the packet is transmitted on exactly this
link. If the current load on the link exceeds the limit the next best link is looked up
and so forth.


8.5 Transport
A QKD network enables two parties, Alice and Bob, to share the same key on an
end-to-end connection across several intermediate hosts. After operating jointly on
a common view of the QKD devices and the key sources via Q3P and having an
optimized routing scheme in the intermediate host given by QKD-NL such end-to-
end key distribution systems can be designed.
Based on the well-known TCP the QKD-TL “ Quantum Key Distribution Trans-
port - Transport Layer “ protocol addresses

• Reliability
• Congestion control
• Connection management
• Multiplexing network services

QKD-TL packets are enclosed in QKD-NL packets, which in turn are enclosed
in Q3P packets. As QKD-TL orients itself tightly to TCP (as QKD-NL does with
IP) the main differences to TCP are described here. The principle of QKD-TL is to
pick a random number, preferentially from a true random number source, and send it
hop-by-hop across the network. On the receiver side this random number is treated
as key. Superfacial this can be achieved already with TCP, but differences do exist.
First, the messages which are transmitted over this network do not have arbi-
trary content. These are quantum generated keys as depicted in Sect. 8.1 and “ as
such “ random numbers. For every hop an additional key plus the key material for an
authentication tag is consumed. Now, whenever some node along the transmission
path has to drop such message due to congestion pure TCP results in a timeout on
the sender side, halving the windows size and resending the packets starting from
the last good acknowledgment.
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 169

In QKD-TL things are different. Since we do not know where the packet has
been dropped we might sacri¬ce a lot of key material for classical TCP resend.
Even worse: the key might have been delivered but the corresponding ACK packet
got lost. Now resending the whole key again for no additional information bene¬t
besides the sender knowing the key has already reached the receiver is not opti-
mal. Based on the fact, that within QKD-TL a message content is actual a series of
pure random bits without any further informational impact or application intention
besides using this data as a cryptographic key, there is no resend mechanism. This
has a deep impact in subprotocols to follow.
Congestion deals with the problem on how to lower network traf¬c in such a
way that every participating party has a fair amount of bandwidth. The resources in
question are the QKD keys needed for transport in each intermediate host. The tech-
nique to calculate the reserves is to watch the outgoing key stores of Q3P plus the
approximated key generation rate on a single Q3P link. If these values drop below
a certain threshold a key shortage is likely to happen. Now QKD-TL introduces a
single new Bit in the ¬‚ags section of the TCP header ¬eld: Congested. This Bit
is set, whenever a node sees its key material on an outgoing line below its label.
The destination node suppresses the sending of an ACK packet back whenever this
Congested Bit is set in packet it reads. This results in a timeout on the sender side
and thus halving the window size which in turn lowers network bandwidth and key
consumption.
Missing a resend facility within QKD-TL raises new questions on how to hand
out key material. For this, QKD-TL cannot be seen as a stream of key material but
has been rather designed utilizing a client“server approach. Figure 8.8 pictures the
basic setup. It shows a typical setup: two areas are drawn which share access to a
QKD network on the bottom and access to a classical public network on top. On the
left side resides a client which wants to share a key with a server on the right side.
This scenario is true for companies having several branches connecting to some
central unit running various application servers.
Itemizing the steps in a simpli¬ed manner:

1. The application server registers itself within the QKD network and states it
readiness to accept key requests by clients through the QKD network. It does
this registration on its next QKD network node running a QKD-TL connection
manager.
2. A client contacts its nearest QKD network node and requests the residing QKD
TL connection manager there to establish a connection with the server.
3. Throughout the QKD network a connection is established, session IDs exchanged.
Along these sessions, the client side QKD-TL manager starts generating keys
along with a key ID, sends them across the QKD network to the server™s QKD-
TL manager. The latter hands the keys out to the server and acknowledges the
key reception. On receiving the acknowledgment the client™s QKD-TL manager
hands out the key to the client.
4. Based on the session ID and on the key ID the client and the server negotiate
keys for concrete application usage.
170 O. Maurhart




Fig. 8.8 QKD-TL and client-server (source: [2])


As QKD-TL does not have a resend mechanism any key transmitted from the
client™s side which lacks a corresponding acknowledgment may be lost. QKD-TL
itself does not provide a key handshaking protocol yet but whenever one is going
to be designed this idiosyncrasy prevails: due to the fact that not the key packet but
an ACK packet may have been lost in the QKD network, the server may have keys
the client lacks at his disposal. Therefore, any key negotiation must ground on client
key material for the some of the server™s keys have to be dismissed.


References
1. Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G.: Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing.
In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal
Processing, pp. 175“179 (1984) 152
2. Dianati, M., Allaume, R., Gagnaire, M., Shen, X.S.: Architecture and protocols of the future
European quantum key distribution network. In: Security and Communication Networks. John
Wiley & Sons, New York (2009) 167, 170
3. Gross, G., Kaycee, M., Li, A., Malis, A., Stephens, J.: RFC 2364: PPP over AAL5 (1998).
URL ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc2364.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc2364.txt 155
8 QKD Networks Based on Q3P 171

4. Hamzeh, K., et al.: RFC 2637: Point-to-point tunneling protocol (pptp) (1999). URL
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2637.txt 155
5. Kent, S., Atkinson, R.: RFC 2401: Security architecture for the Internet Protocol
(1998). URL ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc1825.txt, ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc2401.txt, ftp://
ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc1825.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc2401.txt 158
6. Mamakos, L., et al.: RFC 2516: A method for transmitting ppp over ethernet (pppoe) (1999).
URL http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2516.txt 154
7. McGregor, G.: RFC 1332: The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP) (1992). URL
ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc1332.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc1332.txt 154
8. Moy, J.: RFC 2328: Ospf version 2 (1998). URL ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc2364.txt,
ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc2364.txt 167
9. Poppe, A., Peev, M., Maurhart, O.: Outline of the secoqc quantum-key-distribution network
in vienna. In: International Journal of Quantum Information IJQI, Vol. 6. World Scienti¬c
Publishing (2008). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0122 151
10. Postel, J.: RFC 793: Transmission control protocol (1981). URL ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/
rfc793.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc793.txt 158
11. Romkey, J.L.: RFC 1055: Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams over serial lines: SLIP
(1988). URL ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc1055.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc1055.txt 154
12. Simpson, W.: RFC 1661: The point-to-point protocol (PPP) (1994). URL ftp://ftp.internic.net/
rfc/rfc1548.txt, ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc1661.txt, ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc/rfc2153.txt, ftp://
ftp.internic.net/rfc/std51.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc1548.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.
edu/pub/rfc/rfc1661.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc2153.txt, ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/
pub/rfc/std51.txt 151, 154
13. Zimmermann, H.: Osi reference model“the iso model of architecture for open sys-
tem interconnection. IEEE Transactions Communications Vol. COM-28 (1980). URL
http://www.comsoc.org/livepubs/50 journals/pdf/RightsManageme% nt eid=136833.pdf 154
Chapter 9
Quantum-Cryptographic Networks
from a Prototype to the Citizen

P. Schartner and C. Kollmitzer




9.1 The SECOQC Project
Secure communication is an essential need for companies, public institutions, and in
particular the individual citizen. Currently used encryption systems are vulnerable
due to the increasing power of computer technology, the emergence of new code-
breaking algorithms, and the imperfections of public key infrastructures. Methods
considered as acceptably secure today will have a signi¬cant risk of becoming weak
tomorrow. On the other hand, with quantum cryptography, a technology has been
developed within the last decade that is provably secure against arbitrary computing
power, and even against quantum computer attacks. When becoming operational,
quantum cryptography will raise communication security to an essentially higher
level.
The vision of SECOQC (Development of a Global Network for Secure Commu-
nication based on Quantum Cryptography, [15, 1, 12, 2, 3]) was to provide European
citizens, companies, and institutions with a tool that allows facing the threats of
future interception technologies, thus creating signi¬cant advantages for European
economy. With SECOQC the basis was laid for a long-range high-security com-
munication network that combines the entirely novel technology of quantum key
distribution with components of classical computer science and cryptography.
Within the project the following goals were de¬ned:
1. Realization of a fully functional, real-time, ready-to-market quantum key distri-
bution (QKD) point-to-point communication technology (see Chap. 3).


P. Schartner (B)
System Security Research Group, Institute of Applied Informatics, Universitaet Klagenfurt,
Universitaetsstrasse 65-67, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria, peter.schartner@uniklu.ac.at
http://www.syssec.at
C. Kollmitzer
Safety & Security Department, Quantum Technologies, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology
GmbH, Lakeside B01A 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria, christian.kollmitzer@ait.ac.at;
http://www.ait.ac.at




Schartner, P., Kollmitzer, C.: Quantum-Cryptographic Networks from a Prototype to the
Citizen. Lect. Notes Phys. 797, 173“184 (2010)
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-04831-9 9
174 P. Schartner and C. Kollmitzer

2. Development of an abstract level architecture, allowing high-security long-range
communication by integrating the QKD technology and a set of cryptographic
protocols.
3. Design of a real-life, user-oriented network for practical implementation of
QKD-based long-range secure communication.

To achieve this goal, all experiences and resources available within the Euro-
pean Research Area were integrated and combined with the expertise of developers
and companies within the ¬elds of network integration, cryptography, electronics,
security, and software development [16].



16 km




31 km 6 km
21 km
25 km

85 km


19 km


Fig. 9.1 SECOQC Network Vienna




9.1.1 SECOQC Network Vienna 2008

Figure 9.1 shows the concept of the deployed universal building block for QKD
networking from [14]. The names refer to the stations of the ring network.
Figure 9.2 shows a map of the ¬ber ring network in Vienna including the sta-
tions SIE (Siemensstraße), ERD (Erdberg), GUD (Gudrunstraße), and BREIT 32
(Breitenfurterstraße) from [14]. Another station, St. P¨ lten, was located far outside
o
of Vienna.
The SECOQC network was built by using the telecom ¬ber network from
Siemens Austria. As shown in Fig. 9.2 it was built to connect the of¬ce buildings
of Siemens Austria located in Vienna. The ¬ber ring connected four nodes (SIE,
ERD, GUD, and BREIT) and had a circumference of approximately 85 km. For the
SECOQC network, there was also another ¬ber of about 63 km which connected the
city of St. P¨ lten to the ¬ber ring. Each connection between two nodes was realized
o
by a QKD device pair which was connected by its own dark ¬ber. Another ¬ber loop
was used for the classical communication.
The used QKD devices (for details see Sect. 6.2) had to ful¬ll the following
requirement: a stable secure key rate after authentication of at least 1 kbit/s over
25 km of ¬bers. The systems of the following organizations have met these criteria
and took part in the SECOQC network:
9 Quantum-Cryptographic Networks from a Prototype to the Citizen 175

Fig. 9.2 City map of Vienna
SIE
including the ¬ber ring
network




ERD




GUD


BREIT




• IdQuantique (Switzerland) [8],
• GAP Geneva, IdQuantique, ARC (Switzerland, Austria),
• Toshiba (UK),
• University of Vienna, ARC, KTH (Austria, Sweden), and
• CNRS, Thales, ULB (France, Belgium).


9.1.2 Design of a QKD Network

The ¬rst practical quantum key distribution took place in 2004 when the headquar-
ters of The Bank Austria Creditanstalt and the Vienna City Hall established a secure
communication by using QKD devices. The beeline distance between the commu-
nication partners was about 650 m; the installed optical ¬bers had a length of about
1.45 km [13].
As former QKD schemes, which used to be one-to-one connections, evolve
into QKD networks, new network architectures had to be developed. With the
SECOQC project, a schema was presented, which consists of two main elements
(see Fig. 9.3):
1. A quantum backbone network (QBB), which correlates to a classical backbone
network architecture, enhanced for QKD needs like special key stores (see Sect.
8.3.4)
2. A quantum access node (QAN) which allows the user to get the keys, shared
with other users within the network.
For more information on global scale QKD-based networks see Chap. 10.
176 P. Schartner and C. Kollmitzer



Public



QBB Node A QBB Node B QBB Node C QBB Node D
QBB Node QBB Node QBB Node QBB Node
Module Module Module Module
To
QKD Device
QKD Device QKD Device QKD Device
QAN
QKD Device
QKD Device QKD Device QKD Device
To To
QKD Device
QKD Device QKD Device QKD Device
QAN
QAN
To
QKD Device
QKD Device QKD Device QKD Device
QAN


Fig. 9.3 Network architecture used within the SECOQC project



9.2 How to Bring QKD into the “Real” Life

The QBB network at ¬rst hand provides one-time pad (OTP) keys for end-to-end
security between QBB nodes. In the remainder of this chapter, keys “generated” and
used within the QBB network will be called “QKeys.” A QKey may be a block of
bits, or a stream of bits. In this section, we will discuss some problems which arise,
when we want to provide QKeys for everybody. In more detail, we will discuss
• Secure transmission
• Secure storage
• Ef¬cient usage of QKeys
The ideal scenario is that everybody™s PC is directly connected to a QAN (Quan-
tum Access Node) by a ¬ber-optic channel, so that we can protect the last mile by
the same mechanisms we employ in the QBB network. We do not think that this
scenario will be available in the near future. So, in order to use QKeys everywhere
and at any time, we need to design some other techniques. As one possible solution
for the problem of secure transport, storage, and usage, we propose small mobile
devices like PDAs or SmartPhones with integrated smart cards or special micro
SD memory cards (e.g., certgate smart card [5]). These mobile devices may either
directly use the QKeys within their applications or they may be used to securely
transmit the key to the users™ PC.


9.2.1 Secure Transmission to the Mobile Device
The QBB network provides a securely transmitted key-stream between two QANs.
In order to use these key-streams within applications, they have to be forwarded to
end users, more precisely to the end users™ devices. QBB provides unconditional
9 Quantum-Cryptographic Networks from a Prototype to the Citizen 177

security of the key-streams, so the key-streams have to be protected on the last two
links (one at the sender™s and one at the receiver™s end). Ideally, this protection
should provide unconditional security, and if we can™t afford unconditional security,
we should at least employ a state-of-the-art encryption schemes (e.g., symmetric
encryption by means of AES) and some high-entropy key. In this section we will
discuss several methods of protecting the last link. Analogous to high-speed Internet
we will discuss methods for bridging the last mile (which isn™t really a mile here)
with existing technologies.
Choosing the appropriate method of data transmission isn™t an easy task. Today™s
mobile devices most commonly provide several communication technologies or
input interfaces. Table 9.1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these
communication technologies.
The best method for wireless key transmission is obviously freespace QKD. In
addition to this method, we will discuss two alternatives. One which uses Near Field
Communication (NFC [6]) and another which uses the camera of the mobile device
to transmit the session key or the QKey.

Table 9.1 Input interfaces “ Pros and Cons
Interface PROs CONs
• unconditional secure • low bit rate
Wireless (QKD)
• cumbersomely to use
• quite clumsy and expensive
• easy to use • snif¬ng hard to detect
Wireless (RF)
• high speed • hard to shield
• easy to shield • dif¬cult alignment
Wireless (IR)
• medium bit rate
• easy to use • location of interface not standardized
Wired
• high speed • hidden sniffers hard to detect
• vandalism
• •
widely supported hard to shield
Audio
• •
easy to use low bit rate

• medium bit rate
easy usage and alignment
Video

• exotic way of transmission
unidirectional communication
• easy to shield
• • cumbersomely to use
widely supported
Text
• • very low bit rate
unidirectional communication




9.2.1.1 Quantum Key Distribution “ QKD
Ideally, the key material will be transmitted encrypted by use of an uncondition-
ally secure encryption algorithm. Up to now, the one-time pad is the only such
algorithm. To employ the one-time pad, we need a key which is as long as the
message. Additionally, this key must be random and must not be used twice. So it is
178 P. Schartner and C. Kollmitzer

obvious, that QKD is the ¬rst choice in order to provide unconditional security over
all hops, especially the last one. Unfortunately at the time of writing, there are no
cheap and small (i.e., size of a standard mobile phone) QKD devices. Additionally,
mobile devices should ideally be linked by wireless transmission, in case of QKD
this means freespace transmission.
At the time, freespace QKD provides a bit rate of approximately 10“15 kbit/s at
a distance of about 80 m [17]. Note that this bit rate can only be achieved under
ideal circumstances. A less exact alignment of sender and receiver or atmospheric
in¬‚uences can easily reduce the bit rate.
Using QKD (over ¬bre optics or freespace) to protect the last mile is desirable,
but (at the time) not that practical. So if we do not want to wait, we need other
techniques. The second-best choice after OTP encryption with a QKD key is OTP
encryption with a high-entropy key exchanged by classical mechanisms. If we need
high throughput, we might use a state-of-the-art encryption algorithms and a key of
appropriate length. Nevertheless, in all these cases, we need to exchange a session
key.


9.2.1.2 Near Field Communication “ NFC
In [7], Haselsteiner and Breitfuss proposed an interesting key agreement scheme for
Near Field Communication (NFC [6]), which does not involve any security mech-
anisms at all. The protocol is run between two users A and B, the adversary will
be denoted by E. In principle, A and B repeat the following steps until a suf¬cient
amount of key bits has been generated.

1. Both, A and B, generate a random bit (bA and bB , respectively) which is sent
simultaneously to the other party. In parallel both listen to the communication
channel. Since they both send one bit, there are four possible combinations,
which are shown in Fig. 9.4. Here, a 1 is represented by sending in the ¬rst half
of the time slot, whereas a 0 is represented by sending in the second half of the
time slot.


Signals sent by A and B
bA = 0, bB = 0 bA = 0, bB = 1 bA = 1, bB = 0 bA = 1, bB = 1

A


B

Signal received by E

E

E decodes 0 E decodes ? E decodes ? E decodes 1
dismissed by A,B used by A,B used by A,B dismissed by A,B

Fig. 9.4 NFC key agreement
9 Quantum-Cryptographic Networks from a Prototype to the Citizen 179

2a If bA = bB , A and B can detect this easily, and so can the attacker E. Hence, A
and B have to dismiss their bits and continue with step 1.
2b If A and B sent different bits, they can detect this easily, too. But now, the
attacker only knows that A and B sent different bits. He does not know if bA =
0 and bB = 1 or bA = 1 and bB = 0. So A and B can use either the bit sent
by A or the bit sent by B to generate a session key. They only need a strategy,
whose bit will be used. After adding the selected bit to the session key, A and B
continue with step 1.

Note that this describes only the operating principle. In order to provide a high
level of security, the sending units of A and B have to be “absolutely” synchronous.
Additionally, the amplitudes of the signals generated by A and B have to be indis-
tinguishable.
Since the NFC key agreement uses radio transmission, we have to provide some
electromagnetically shielded environment. This raises the question “Why not trans-
mit the key in clear?” or, for the sake of security, encrypted by use of a rather short
key and high-speed symmetric encryption scheme?


9.2.1.3 Optical Transmission
When we think of wireless transmission of the key-stream, we should not restrict
ourselves to radio frequency (i.e., WLAN, Bluetooth, of NFC). Since almost all
current phones and most PDAs are equipped with a camera, we might use opti-
cal transmission of the QKeys instead of radio transmission. Again, this is not the
ideal (i.e., high-speed, unconditional-secure) mechanism. But it is cheap, easy to
implement, and easy to use! Additionally, optical transmission is much easier to
shield than radio frequency transmission (light doesn™t propagate around corners
that easily).
So how to apply optical transmission between the key terminal and the mobile

<<

. 7
( 9)



>>