We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

Trojan-horse attacks threaten the security of practical quantum cryptography

00:00

Formal Metadata

Title
Trojan-horse attacks threaten the security of practical quantum cryptography
Title of Series
Number of Parts
49
Author
License
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
Language

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Genre
Abstract
A quantum key distribution (QKD) system may be probed by an eavesdropper Eve by sending in bright light from the quantum channel and analyzing the back-reflections. We propose and experimentally demonstrate a setup for mounting such a Trojan-horse attack. We show it in operation against the quantum cryptosystem Clavis2 from ID Quantique, as a proof-of-principle. With just a few back-reflected photons, Eve discerns Bobʼs (secret) basis choice, and thus the raw key bit in the Scarani–Acín–Ribordy–Gisin 2004 protocol, with higher than 90% probability. This would clearly breach the security of the cryptosystem. Unfortunately, Eveʼs bright pulses have a side effect of causing a high level of afterpulsing in Bobʼs single-photon detectors, resulting in a large quantum bit error rate that effectively protects this system from our attack. However, in a Clavis2-like system equipped with detectors with less-noisy but realistic characteristics, an attack strategy with positive leakage of the key would exist. We confirm this by a numerical simulation. Both the eavesdropping setup and strategy can be generalized to attack most of the current QKD systems, especially if they lack proper safeguards. We also propose countermeasures to prevent such attacks.
Heat exchangerModel buildingElectric power distributionWriting implementSynthesizerQuantumKey (engineering)LeadMint-made errorsEveningPlain bearingVideoElectric power distributionSynthesizerQuantum cryptographyComputer animationLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
SynthesizerQuantumMeeting/Interview
LightReflexionskoeffizientSynthesizerBasis (linear algebra)EveningChannelingA Large Ion Collider ExperimentComputer animationDiagram
ModulationRefractive indexLichtleitkabelMultiplizitätSteckverbinderLecture/Conference
ModulationOpticsReflexionskoeffizientBasis (linear algebra)Binary starLaserModulationPhotonTypesettingChannelingSingle (music)HalbleitergleichrichterAvalancheSynthesizerQuantumSource (album)Interlaced videoPhase (matter)Basis (linear algebra)Diffuser (automotive)Domäne <Kristallographie>A Large Ion Collider ExperimentComputer animation
MeasurementEveningPhase (matter)SpantComputer animation
SensorPhotonSingle (music)AvalancheCartridge (firearms)EveningMeeting/Interview
BrightnessNoise (electronics)SynthesizerMint-made errorsPhotonHalbleitergleichrichterAvalancheGate (airport)EveningComputer animationDiagram
Rail transport operationsSensorNoise (electronics)SynthesizerTiefdruckgebietEveningPaperMeeting/Interview
TypesettingHot workingSynthesizerShip classMeeting/Interview
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
Hi there. Quantum key distribution or QKD provides methods to facilitate the exchange of a symmetric key which can be used for encrypting messages securely. The security of the distributed key is based on quantum mechanical principles. Essentially, the actions
of an adversary, usually called Eve, lead to an error in the outcomes observed by users, usually called Alice and Bob. But in practice, Eve's attack on a physical QKD implementation may go unnoticed because of imperfections in the hardware or insufficient assumptions in the theoretical security model. Today, I shall talk about Trojan Horse attacks
that can violate the security of practical QKD systems as we have recently demonstrated. Here you see the physical hardware of the QKD system on which we performed our demonstration. This system is known as Clavis II and it is sold by the Swiss firm Edi Quantique.
The objective of our exercise, frequently called quantum hacking, is to explore, expose and exploit vulnerabilities in practical QKD systems in an ethical manner. Here we cooperate with Edi Quantique and suggest them countermeasures against the crafted attacks.
The intention is to strengthen the security of practical QKD even further. The basic principle of Trojan Horse attacks involves the adversary Eve sending in bright light from the quantum channel and analyzing the back reflections. By measuring the back reflected photons, Eve can discern the secret basis choice of the attack subsystem.
Let us imagine a simple network composed of a modulator and an optical fiber. An optical pulse traveling through this network encounters multiple sites of back reflections, for example caused by a change of refractive index. Here these sites are located inside
the modulator and at the connector interface. This is the scheme of the QKD subsystem in which we found suitable back reflections using optical time domain reflectometry methods. We demonstrated that the secret basis choice in Bob can be discerned in real time with almost
100% success probability. In this graph, the red trace shows the random binary modulation of Bob and the blue trace the measurement outcomes of Eve. One can see they are highly correlated. It would therefore seem that the QKD system is hacked, but unfortunately for Eve that is not
the case. The single photon detectors in Bob are gated avalanche diodes that experience after pulsing due to the bright Trojan Horse pulses. This increases the overall noise and hence the error observed by Bob, thereby disclosing the attack.
We therefore developed an attack strategy that allows Eve to maximize the information of the secret key while minimizing the chances of being discovered. We simulated the operation of the QKD system with and without the attack, the details of which
you can find in our paper. Although our attack strategy does not succeed in Clevis 2, we show that similar QKD systems with low noise detectors may be hacked. Our attack setup and strategy can be easily generalized to other types of QKD systems. Also, the countermeasures against this attack are not entirely straightforward.
We discussed some in the paper and present a more comprehensive risk analysis in another related work. In conclusion, we have shown that neither the Trojan Horse attack nor the countermeasures against it are straightforward. However, with the insights gained from our work,
future QKD systems can be made safer against this class of attacks. Thank you for listening.