Data Structures and Algorithms

   

On the “cracking” Scheme in the Paper “A Directional Coupler Attack Against the Kish Key Distribution System” by Gunn, Allison and Abbott

Authors: Hsien-Pu Chen, Laszlo B. Kish, Claes-Göran Granqvist, Gabor Schmera

Recently, Gunn, Allison and Abbott (GAA) [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.2709v2.pdf] proposed a new scheme to utilize electromagnetic waves for eavesdropping on the Kirchhoff-law–Johnson-noise (KLJN) secure key distribution. We proved in a former paper [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.4664] that GAA’s mathematical model is unphysical. Here we analyze GAA’s cracking scheme and show that in the cable loss free case it serves less eavesdropping information than the old mean-square based attack, while in the loss-dominated case it offers no information. We also investigate GAA's experimental claim to be capable of distinguishing, with a poor statistics over a few correlation times, the distributions of two Gaussian noises with a relative variance difference of less than 10–8. Normally such distinctions would require hundreds of millions of correlations times to be observable. We identify several experimental artifacts due to poor design that can lead to GAA’s assertions; deterministic currents due to spurious harmonic components ground loop, DC offset; aliasing; non-Gaussian features including non-linearities and other non-idealities in the generators; and the time-derivative nature of their scheme enhancing all these aspects.

Comments: 11 Pages. missing/incorrect abstract fixed; extended (second) version

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2014-04-10 23:52:54
[v2] 2014-04-11 08:37:35
[v3] 2014-05-15 06:52:11
[v4] 2014-05-15 23:12:47

Unique-IP document downloads: 112 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus