Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 86 references

Layer-Wise Security Framework and Analysis for the Quantum Internet

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum internet security, the paper argues, can be mapped onto a four-layer stack—physical, link, network, application—where each layer carries its own attacks and defenses.

desk verdict Useful, accurate survey of quantum internet security; the four-layer framework is shakier than it claims, the simulations are thin, and a section is missing—still worth refereeing with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06989 v1 pith:CYPB4FPP submitted 2025-01-13 cs.NI cs.CRquant-ph

Zebo Yang , Ali Ghubaish , Raj Jain , Ala Al-Fuqaha , Aiman Erbad , Ramana Kompella , Hassan Shapourian , Reza Nejabati This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NIcs.CRquant-ph
keywords quantuminternetnetworksecuritylayer-wiseframeworkkeydistributionrepeatersentanglementroutingdenialofservicephotonnumbersplitting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the security problems of the future quantum internet can be organized into a four-layer stack—physical, link, network, and application—and that each layer has its own characteristic attacks and defenses. It compiles known vulnerabilities, including photon number splitting, Trojan-horse attacks, entangling probes, untrusted repeaters, denial of service, routing disruption, and quantum probes, and rates how ready each attack is to be executed with current resources. Three simulations accompany the analysis: how an eavesdropper's photon stealing shifts the photon statistics Bob receives, how phase randomization reduces Eve's information gain in Trojan-horse attacks, and how available paths collapse as the fraction of untrusted repeaters grows. If the layer-wise organization is accepted, it gives researchers a common map for assigning security research priorities across a field that lacks settled architecture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simplified four-layer quantum-internet stack of Section III—physical, link, network, and application—adapted from the protocol-stack survey [24]. This stack does the organizing work: it assigns each attack to the layer whose resource the attack exploits, and it anchors the readiness ranking in Table II. The supporting machinery is quantitative: a Poisson photon-count model for photon number splitting, a per-photon information-gain formula $G = \sum_i \gamma_i$ with $\gamma_i$ depending on basis matching and the phase shift $\theta_i$ for the Trojan-horse simulation, and 100-node graph simulations across grid, tree, Erdős–Rényi, Waxman, and Barabási–Albert topologies for untrusted-repeater path availability.

What would settle it

An attack that cannot be assigned to one of the four layers without misdescribing the failure—for example, a detector-blinding attack that simultaneously changes physical hardware behavior, link-layer error statistics, and application-layer key rates—would show that the layer-wise decomposition misses the security surface.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the quantum internet's security surface is best understood layer by layer, following a simplified protocol stack with physical, link, network, and application layers. For each layer the paper identifies representative attacks and candidate countermeasures: photon number splitting and Trojan-horse attacks at the physical layer; entangling-probe, man-in-the-middle, and error-correction attacks at the link layer; untrusted repeaters, denial of service, and routing disruption at the network layer; and quantum algorithmic attacks and quantum probes at the application layer. The paper further claims that attack readiness is uneven: application-layer attacks and network-layer denial of service and routing disruption are the most feasible with current resources, while physical-layer attacks and quantum probes require advanced quantum hardware. The simulations support specific sub-claims: Eve's photon stealing changes the shape of the Poisson distribution Bob receives and is visible through Z-scores; phase randomization lowers Eve's per-photon gain on the diagonal measurement basis; and bypassing untrusted repeaters produces an exponential decrease in available paths, with more highly connected topologies such as grids more resilient than trees.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis rests on accepting the simplified four-layer stack—physical, link, network, application—as a faithful organizing scheme for real quantum internet architectures, even though the paper acknowledges it is simplified and places QKD at different layers in different network types.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adopting the layer-wise map lets a new quantum-network attack be filed to the layer that controls the compromised resource, and lets defenses be aimed at that same layer.
  • The readiness ranking points near-term security effort toward application-layer protocol flaws and network-layer classical control systems, which require the least specialized quantum hardware to attack.
  • The untrusted-repeater result implies that quantum backbone designs should prefer topologies with redundant paths and should build quality-of-service metrics that flag abnormal nodes before relying on bypass.
  • The photon-statistics and phase-randomization simulations imply that statistical monitoring of received photon distributions and randomized phase shifts are practical, low-cost defenses for prepare-and-measure QKD.
  • Because QKD sits at the link layer in relay networks but at the application layer in entanglement networks, security claims must state which network architecture they assume.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The four layers are treated as separable, but real attacks can cross layers—for example, detector blinding begins in physical hardware and ends by corrupting application-layer key material—so a future framework may need explicit cross-layer interfaces.
  • The readiness table implies a testable prediction: in a real QKD deployment, application-layer attacks should be observed before physical-layer attacks if the ranking is correct.
  • The PNS simulation's reliance on distribution shape suggests that legitimate nodes could monitor the full photon-number distribution, not just error rates, as an eavesdropping detector.
  • The topology simulation could be extended into a cost model that trades detection accuracy against rerouting overhead in realistic backbone networks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a survey-style analysis of quantum internet security organized around a simplified four-layer stack (physical, link, network, application). It catalogs known attacks and countermeasures per layer, including PNS, Trojan-horse, entangling-probe, routing disruption, and quantum probes, and it offers a readiness table (Table II) and three simulations: photon distribution under PNS (Fig. 3), phase randomization against Trojan-horse attacks (Fig. 4), and path availability with untrusted repeaters (Fig. 6). The stated contribution is a layer-wise security framework and an assessment of attack severity and mitigation effectiveness.

Significance. If the framework were stable and the simulations sound, the paper would be a useful entry point for quantum-network security research, with a broad literature coverage and a readable organization. The readiness table and the three simulations are potentially valuable; the simulations, in particular, are a step beyond a pure survey. The principal weakness is that the layer assignments are not invariant across the network models the paper itself distinguishes, and the quantitative claims are not yet reproducible. The paper's survey content and taxonomies deserve publication after revision; the empirical contributions need substantiation or should be labeled as illustrative only.

major comments (4)
  1. [III, IV.A.1, IV.C.1, IV.D.2, Table II] The layer-wise taxonomy is not a stable organizing principle. Section III explicitly states that QKD sits at both the link and application layers in QKD-relay networks but only at the application layer in entanglement networks; yet Section IV.A.1 classifies the PNS attack (a QKD attack) as a physical-layer attack and Section IV.D.2 classifies quantum probes (also QKD attacks) as application-layer attacks. Similarly, repeaters are presented as link-layer components in Section II.B and Table I, while the untrusted-repeater discussion in Section IV.C.1 is placed in the network layer. Because the same attack type can shift layers depending on the network model, the paper's central claim of a layer-wise security analysis does not currently hold; Table II's readiness ratings inherit this ambiguity. The paper needs either to assign each attack relative to a fixed, explicitly chosen reference stack or to replace the single four-layer claim with a mapping across the three network types.
  2. [IV.A.1, IV.A.2, IV.C.1, Figs. 3, 4, 6] The three simulations do not meet the standard needed to support the paper's claim of 'empirical value' (Introduction). In Section IV.A.1, the PNS simulation uses a Poisson mean photon number of 5, which is two to three orders of magnitude larger than typical weak-coherent-pulse QKD sources (usually mu around 0.1-0.5), so the simulated photon distribution is not in the PNS-relevant regime. No repetition count, error bars, or statistical test is given to support the Z-score statement. In Section IV.A.2, the phase-randomization simulation (Fig. 4) is described qualitatively, Eq. (2) is not well-formed, and the claim that randomized and fixed pi/2 shifts perform similarly is not quantified. The path-availability simulation in IV.C.1 also assumes compromised nodes are identified, an assumption the text itself admits is unresolved, and the 'exponential decrease' claim is not fitted to the data.
  3. [Manuscript structure] The manuscript omits Section V: the text jumps from the end of Section IV.D.2 to 'VI. DISCUSSION – READINESS OF QUANTUM ATTACKS'. The missing section is a structural defect that breaks the paper's flow and leaves the 'analyses and simulations' contribution incomplete. If Section V was intended to contain the analysis or discussion of simulation results, its absence prevents evaluation.
  4. [VI, Table II] The readiness ratings in Table II are not supported by a transparent methodology. The scale Low/Moderate/High is never defined, and the text's criteria (technical requirements, hardware accessibility, computational resources) are not operationalized; for example, 'Quantum Probes' is rated 'Low' while 'Quantum Algorithmic Attacks' is 'High', but the rationale is not tied to a quantitative measure or to the subsequent discussion. Because Table II is one of the paper's two main outputs, the ratings need a clear rubric or a removal of the claim to 'evaluate the expected effectiveness' beyond a qualitative summary.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV.A.2, Eq. (2)] The formula for gamma_i is malformed; the cases (b_i^E vs b_i^A) are not properly separated and the closing delimiter is missing. Please rewrite it as a piecewise definition.
  2. [IV.A.1] The PNS simulation does not report the number of transmitted pulses or a random seed; please add these details for reproducibility.
  3. [References] Reference [62] points to the NetworkX documentation; a formal reference to the specific generator models would be more appropriate.
  4. [Throughout] There is inconsistent use of 'MiTM' and 'MitM' in the text; please standardize.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract introduces 'CIA' without expansion; please expand at first use in the abstract or the introduction.
  6. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 is referenced in the text but the figure itself is not visible in the submitted text; if this is a rendering issue, please ensure the figure is present.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the layer taxonomy rests on an external survey, self-citations are background, and the simulations are self-contained illustrations rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an organizing security taxonomy, and its four-layer stack is explicitly taken from an external source: Section III says 'We define a simplified layer-based structure based on the core features of various quantum internet stacks [24]', where [24] is the Illiano et al. protocol-stack survey, not the authors' own work. The attack/countermeasure tables and readiness ratings are compiled from the cited external literature rather than derived from the authors' prior results. The two simulations are illustrative models, not fitted predictions: the PNS simulation assumes a Poisson source with mean 5 and specifies Eve's interception scenarios, and the Trojan-horse simulation defines Eve's gain through Eqs. (1)-(2) and plots it for three phase settings. These results are mathematical consequences of the stated models, but the models are given independently of the conclusions and no parameter is fit to make the conclusion true, so this is not circular in the prohibited sense. The self-citations ([4], [15], [34], and [13] with an overlapping author) appear in background discussions of quantum computing, routing approaches, and repeater examples; the security framework does not lean on those papers as authority for its load-bearing claims. The paper's own caveats—'the framework for quantum internet architecture remains unsettled' and 'the placement of QKD within the network architecture can vary'—are limitations of the taxonomy's stability rather than circularity. The missing Section V and the lack of reproducible simulation code are presentation and reproducibility issues, not circular reasoning. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard quantum-information assumptions and two modeling choices: the four-layer stack and the identification of compromised nodes in simulations. The simulations introduce hand-chosen parameters, including Poisson mean, phase shift, and topology generator settings, that affect the quantitative plots but not the qualitative taxonomy. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Poisson mean photon number lambda = 5
    Used in the PNS simulation (Section IV.A.1) to model weak coherent pulses, but 5 photons per pulse is far above typical QKD mean photon numbers and is chosen for illustration without justification.
  • Phase shift theta = pi/2 (consistent) and randomized
    Used in the Trojan-horse simulation (Section IV.A.2); the pi/2 value is selected for comparison but not derived from any protocol.
  • Topology generator parameters = p=0.2, alpha=0.1, beta=0.4, h=4, r=3, k=3
    Used for the 100-node untrusted-repeater simulation (Section IV.C.1); the results depend on these choices.
  • Compromised-node threshold = 60%
    Stated as the point at which all viable paths disappear, but it is an empirical observation for the chosen topologies, not a general result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption No-cloning, measurement disturbance, and entanglement correlations make eavesdropping detectable in QKD.
    Invoked in Sections I, II.D, and IV.A.1 as the security foundation; these are standard quantum information results not proved in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The four-layer stack (physical, link, network, application) captures the essential features of quantum internet architectures.
    Defined in Section III as a simplified structure based on [24]; if the stack is not representative, the layer-wise attribution of attacks is not reliable.
  • domain assumption Attackers have the equipment implied by each attack, including photon sources, detectors, channel access, or classical control, as summarized in Table II.
    Used throughout Sections IV and VI; attacker capabilities are stated qualitatively, not modeled formally.
  • ad hoc to paper Compromised repeater nodes can be identified and excluded before pathfinding in the Fig. 6 simulation.
    Section IV.C.1 assumes identified compromised nodes; the paper admits that assessing trustworthiness is itself an open problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Layer-Wise Security Framework and Analysis for the Quantum Internet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CYPB4FPP

@misc{pith2026250106989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Layer-Wise Security Framework and Analysis for the Quantum Internet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CYPB4FPP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06989}
}
read the original abstract

With its significant security potential, the quantum internet is poised to revolutionize technologies like cryptography and communications. Although it boasts enhanced security over traditional networks, the quantum internet still encounters unique security challenges essential for safeguarding its Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA). This study explores these challenges by analyzing the vulnerabilities and the corresponding mitigation strategies across different layers of the quantum internet, including physical, link, network, and application layers. We assess the severity of potential attacks, evaluate the expected effectiveness of mitigation strategies, and identify vulnerabilities within diverse network configurations, integrating both classical and quantum approaches. Our research highlights the dynamic nature of these security issues and emphasizes the necessity for adaptive security measures. The findings underline the need for ongoing research into the security dimension of the quantum internet to ensure its robustness, encourage its adoption, and maximize its impact on society.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06989 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Common types of quantum repeaters and key relays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of end-to-end entanglement distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Phase randomization in the Trojan-Horse simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    However, additional challenges arise in a more complex network where the instant topology is constantly changing due to state decoherence and consumption

    →D→E→C is the desired route, as it is the only feasible option. However, additional challenges arise in a more complex network where the instant topology is constantly changing due to state decoherence and consumption. Existing approaches suggest two types of methods: one utilizes synchronization to maintain a relatively stable instantaneous topology [14]...

    1984

  2. [2]

    Entanglement between a diamond spin qubit and a photonic time-bin qubit at telecom wavelength,

    A. Tchebotareva et al., “Entanglement between a diamond spin qubit and a photonic time-bin qubit at telecom wavelength,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 123, no. 6, p. 063601, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.063601

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.063601 2019

  3. [3]

    Deterministic delivery of remote entanglement on a quantum network,

    P. C. Humphreys et al., “Deterministic delivery of remote entanglement on a quantum network,” Nature, vol. 558, no. 7709, pp. 268–273, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0200-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0200-5 2018

  4. [4]

    A survey of important issues in quantum computing and communications,

    Z. Yang, M. Zolanvari, and R. Jain, “A survey of important issues in quantum computing and communications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1059–1094, 2023, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2023.3254481

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    prepare-and-measure

    Key Generation: Mismatched basis measurements are discarded, leaving a shared secret key. BB84 and its variants are commonly referred to as “prepare-and-measure” protocols. In these protocols, a portion of the key is shared publicly to detect eavesdropping. Any discrepancies in the disclosed key indicate tampering, leading the end users to disregard the c...

    1991

  6. [6]

    Micius quantum experiments in space,

    C.-Y. Lu, Y. Cao, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, “Micius quantum experiments in space,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 94, no. 3, p. 035001, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.94.035001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.035001 2022

  7. [7]

    Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,” Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 560, pp. 7–11, Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025

    doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025 2014

  8. [8]

    The Evolution of Quantum Key Distribution Networks: On the Road to the Qinternet,

    Y. Cao, Y. Zhao, Q. Wang, J. Zhang, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “The Evolution of Quantum Key Distribution Networks: On the Road to the Qinternet,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 839–894, 2022, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2022.3144219

    work page arXiv 2022

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum sensing,

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sensing,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 89, no. 3, p. 035002, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035002

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    The quantum internet,

    H. J. Kimble, “The quantum internet,” Nature, vol. 453, no. 7198, pp. 1023–1030, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1038/nature07127

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication,

    H. J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 81, no. 26, pp. 5932–5935, Dec. 1998, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5932

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication,

    S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, “Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication,” Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 20463, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1038/srep20463

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    One-Way Quantum Repeater Based on Near-Deterministic Photon-Emitter Interfaces,

    J. Borregaard, H. Pichler, T. Schröder, M. D. Lukin, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, “One-Way Quantum Repeater Based on Near-Deterministic Photon-Emitter Interfaces,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 021071, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021071

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    All-photonic one-way quantum repeaters with measurement-based error correction,

    D. Niu, Y. Zhang, A. Shabani, and H. Shapourian, “All-photonic one-way quantum repeaters with measurement-based error correction,” Npj Quantum Inf., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00775-9

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,

    M. Pant et al., “Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,” Npj Quantum Inf., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41534-019-0139-x

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Asynchronous entanglement routing for the quantum internet,

    Z. Yang, A. Ghubaish, R. Jain, H. Shapourian, and A. Shabani, “Asynchronous entanglement routing for the quantum internet,” AVS Quantum Sci., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 013801, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1116/5.0172819

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Hybrid Trusted/Untrusted Relay-Based Quantum Key Distribution Over Optical Backbone Networks,

    Y. Cao, Y. Zhao, J. Li, R. Lin, J. Zhang, and J. Chen, “Hybrid Trusted/Untrusted Relay-Based Quantum Key Distribution Over Optical Backbone Networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 2701–2718, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2021.3064662

    2021

  10. [18]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Attacking the Quantum Internet,

    T. Satoh, S. Nagayama, S. Suzuki, T. Matsuo, M. Hajdušek, and R. V. Meter, “Attacking the Quantum Internet,” IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., vol. 2, pp. 1–17, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TQE.2021.3094983

    2021

  12. [20]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, Art. no. 5886, Oct. 1982, doi: 10.1038/299802a0

    1982 doi

  13. [21]

    Limitations on Practical Quantum Cryptography,

    G. Brassard, N. Lütkenhaus, T. Mor, and B. C. Sanders, “Limitations on Practical Quantum Cryptography,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 1330–1333, Aug. 2000, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1330

    doi

  14. [22]

    Quantum hacking: Experimental demonstration of time-shift attack against practical quantum-key-distribution systems,

    Y. Zhao, C. H. F. Fung, B. Qi, C. Chen, and H. K. Lo, “Quantum hacking: Experimental demonstration of time-shift attack against practical quantum-key-distribution systems,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 78, no. 4, p. 042333, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042333

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    A quantum key distribution protocol for rapid denial of service detection,

    A. B. Price, J. G. Rarity, and C. Erven, “A quantum key distribution protocol for rapid denial of service detection,” EPJ Quantum Technol., vol. 7, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-020-00084-6

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Quantum Internet protocol stack: A comprehensive survey,

    J. Illiano, M. Caleffi, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Quantum Internet protocol stack: A comprehensive survey,” Comput. Netw., vol. 213, p. 109092, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109092

    2022

  17. [25]

    On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,

    J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,” Phys. Phys. Fiz., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 195–200, Nov. 1964, doi: 10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    1964 doi

  18. [27]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,

    P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Nov. 1994, pp. 124–134. doi: 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700

    1994

  19. [28]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) 1996, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States: ACM Press, 1996, pp. 212–219. doi: 10.1145/237814.237866

    1996

  20. [29]

    Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 3824–3851, Nov. 1996, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824

    1996 doi

  21. [30]

    Comparing One- and Two-way Quantum Repeater Architectures,

    P. Mantri, K. Goodenough, and D. Towsley, “Comparing One- and Two-way Quantum Repeater Architectures,” Sep. 10, 2024, arXiv: arXiv:2409.06152. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06152

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    Quantum repeaters for communication,

    H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum repeaters for communication,” Mar. 20, 1998, arXiv: arXiv:quant-ph/9803056. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9803056

    1998 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters,

    M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, “Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters,” Nature, vol. 557, no. 7705, pp. 400–403, May 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0066-6

    2018 doi

  24. [34]

    Multi-Tree Quantum Routing in Realistic Topologies,

    Z. Yang, A. Ghubaish, R. Jain, R. Kompella, and H. Shapourian, “Multi-Tree Quantum Routing in Realistic Topologies,” IEEE Commun. Mag., 15 # vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 78–85, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.006.2300851

    2024 doi

  25. [35]

    Advances in device-independent quantum key distribution,

    V. Zapatero et al., “Advances in device-independent quantum key distribution,” Npj Quantum Inf., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00684-x

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution,

    H. K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, “Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 108, no. 13, p. 130503, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130503

    2012 doi

  27. [37]

    Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,

    A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 661–663, Aug. 1991, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661

    1991 doi

  28. [38]

    Effective routing design for remote entanglement generation on quantum networks,

    C. Li, T. Li, Y. X. Liu, and P. Cappellaro, “Effective routing design for remote entanglement generation on quantum networks,” Npj Quantum Inf., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41534-020-00344-4

    2021 doi

  29. [39]

    The security of practical quantum key distribution,

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, “The security of practical quantum key distribution,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 1301–1350, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1301

    2009 doi

  30. [40]

    Security of quantum key distribution with light sources that are not independently and identically distributed,

    Y. Nagamatsu, A. Mizutani, R. Ikuta, T. Yamamoto, N. Imoto, and K. Tamaki, “Security of quantum key distribution with light sources that are not independently and identically distributed,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 93, no. 4, p. 042325, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.042325

    2016 doi

  31. [41]

    Practical decoy state for quantum key distribution,

    X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H. K. Lo, “Practical decoy state for quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 72, no. 1, p. 012326, Jul. 2005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012326

    2005 doi

  32. [42]

    Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication,

    W. Y. Hwang, “Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, no. 5, p. 057901, Aug. 2003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.057901

    2003 doi

  33. [44]

    Experimental quantum secure direct communication with single photons,

    J. Y. Hu et al., “Experimental quantum secure direct communication with single photons,” Light Sci. Appl., vol. 5, no. 9, pp. e16144–e16144, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1038/lsa.2016.144

    2016 doi

  34. [45]

    Trojan-horse attacks threaten the security of practical quantum cryptography,

    N. Jain, E. Anisimova, I. Khan, V. Makarov, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, “Trojan-horse attacks threaten the security of practical quantum cryptography,” New J. Phys., vol. 16, no. 12, p. 123030, Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/123030

    2014 doi

  35. [46]

    Trojan-horse attacks on quantum-key-distribution systems,

    N. Gisin, S. Fasel, B. Kraus, H. Zbinden, and G. Ribordy, “Trojan-horse attacks on quantum-key-distribution systems,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 73, no. 2, p. 022320, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022320

    2006 doi

  36. [47]

    Improving the security of multiparty quantum secret sharing against Trojan horse attack,

    F. G. Deng, X. H. Li, H. Y. Zhou, and Z. jun Zhang, “Improving the security of multiparty quantum secret sharing against Trojan horse attack,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 72, no. 4, p. 044302, Oct. 2005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.044302

    2005 doi

  37. [48]

    Risk Analysis of Trojan-Horse Attacks on Practical Quantum Key Distribution Systems,

    N. Jain, B. Stiller, I. Khan, V. Makarov, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, “Risk Analysis of Trojan-Horse Attacks on Practical Quantum Key Distribution Systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 168–177, May 2015, doi: 10.1109/JSTQE.2014.2365585

    2015

  38. [50]

    Hacking commercial quantum cryptography systems by tailored bright illumination,

    L. Lydersen, C. Wiechers, C. Wittmann, D. Elser, J. Skaar, and V. Makarov, “Hacking commercial quantum cryptography systems by tailored bright illumination,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 4, no. 10, Art. no. 10, Oct. 2010, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2010.214

    2010 doi

  39. [51]

    Controlling a superconducting nanowire single-photon detector using tailored bright illumination,

    L. Lydersen, M. K. Akhlaghi, A. H. Majedi, J. Skaar, and V. Makarov, “Controlling a superconducting nanowire single-photon detector using tailored bright illumination,” New J. Phys., vol. 13, no. 11, p. 113042, Nov. 2011, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113042

    2011 doi

  40. [52]

    Experimental demonstration of phase-remapping attack in a practical quantum key distribution system,

    F. Xu, B. Qi, and H. K. Lo, “Experimental demonstration of phase-remapping attack in a practical quantum key distribution system,” New J. Phys., vol. 12, no. 11, p. 113026, Nov. 2010, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/113026

    2010 doi

  41. [53]

    Tamper-Indicating Quantum Seal,

    B. P. Williams, K. A. Britt, and T. S. Humble, “Tamper-Indicating Quantum Seal,” Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 014001, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.5.014001

    2016 doi

  42. [54]

    The SECOQC quantum key distribution network in Vienna,

    M. Peev et al., “The SECOQC quantum key distribution network in Vienna,” New J. Phys., vol. 11, no. 7, p. 075001, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/075001

    2009 doi

  43. [55]

    Quantum-cryptographic entangling probe,

    H. E. Brandt, “Quantum-cryptographic entangling probe,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 71, no. 4, p. 042312, Apr. 2005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.042312

    2005 doi

  44. [56]

    An entangling-probe attack on Shor’s algorithm for factorization,

    H. Azuma, “An entangling-probe attack on Shor’s algorithm for factorization,” J. Mod. Opt., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 415–422, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1080/09500340.2017.1397221

    2018

  45. [57]

    Entangled State Quantum Cryptography: Eavesdropping on the Ekert Protocol,

    D. S. Naik, C. G. Peterson, A. G. White, A. J. Berglund, and P. G. Kwiat, “Entangled State Quantum Cryptography: Eavesdropping on the Ekert Protocol,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 84, no. 20, pp. 4733–4736, May 2000, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4733

    doi

  46. [58]

    How to expose an eavesdropper,

    R. L. Rivest and A. Shamir, “How to expose an eavesdropper,” Commun. ACM, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 393–394, Apr. 1984, doi: 10.1145/358027.358053

    1984

  47. [59]

    Feasibility of the interlock protocol against man-in-the-middle attacks on quantum cryptography,

    K. Svozil, “Feasibility of the interlock protocol against man-in-the-middle attacks on quantum cryptography,” Int. J. Quantum Inf., vol. 03, no. 04, pp. 649–654, Dec. 2005, doi: 10.1142/S0219749905001511

    2005 doi

  48. [60]

    Quantum error correction for quantum memories,

    B. M. Terhal, “Quantum error correction for quantum memories,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 307–346, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.307

    2015 doi

  49. [61]

    Combined error correction techniques for quantum computing architectures,

    M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, “Combined error correction techniques for quantum computing architectures,” J. Mod. Opt., vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 1285–1297, May 2003, doi: 10.1080/09500340308235203

    2003 doi

  50. [64]

    A Novel Approach to Quality-of-Service Provisioning in Trusted Relay Quantum Key Distribution Networks,

    M. Mehic et al., “A Novel Approach to Quality-of-Service Provisioning in Trusted Relay Quantum Key Distribution Networks,” IEEE ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 168–181, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TNET.2019.2956079

    2020

  51. [65]

    A Survey of Security Attacks in Information-Centric Networking,

    E. G. Abdallah, H. S. Hassanein, and M. Zulkernine, “A Survey of Security Attacks in Information-Centric Networking,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1441–1454, 2015, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2015.2392629

    2015

  52. [66]

    Quantum computing on encrypted data,

    K. a. G. Fisher et al., “Quantum computing on encrypted data,” Nat. Commun., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 3074, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1038/ncomms4074

    2014 doi

  53. [67]

    Error-correcting entanglement swapping using a practical logical photon encoding,

    P. Hilaire, E. Barnes, S. E. Economou, and F. Grosshans, “Error-correcting entanglement swapping using a practical logical photon encoding,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 104, no. 5, p. 052623, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052623

    2021 doi

  54. [68]

    A link layer protocol for quantum networks,

    A. Dahlberg et al., “A link layer protocol for quantum networks,” in Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM), Beijing China: ACM, Aug. 2019, pp. 159–173. doi: 10.1145/3341302.3342070

    2019

  55. [70]

    A Quantum Internet Architecture,

    R. Van Meter et al., “A Quantum Internet Architecture,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Sep. 2022, pp. 341–352. doi: 10.1109/QCE53715.2022.00055

    2022

  56. [71]

    Quantum identification schemes with entanglements,

    T. Mihara, “Quantum identification schemes with entanglements,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 65, no. 5, p. 052326, May 2002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.052326

    2002 doi

  57. [72]

    Quantum identification system,

    M. Dušek, O. Haderka, M. Hendrych, and R. Myška, “Quantum identification system,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 149–156, Jul. 1999, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.149

    1999 doi

  58. [74]

    Connection-Oriented and Connectionless Remote Entanglement Distribution Strategies in Quantum Networks,

    Z. Li, K. Xue, J. Li, N. Yu, D. S. L. Wei, and R. Li, “Connection-Oriented and Connectionless Remote Entanglement Distribution Strategies in Quantum Networks,” IEEE Netw., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 150–156, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1109/MNET.107.2100483

    2022 doi

  59. [76]

    A survey of defense mechanisms against distributed denial of service (DDoS) flooding attacks,

    S. T. Zargar, J. Joshi, and D. Tipper, “A survey of defense mechanisms against distributed denial of service (DDoS) flooding attacks,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2046–2069,

  60. [78]

    Denial of service resilience in ad hoc networks,

    I. Aad, J. P. Hubaux, and E. W. Knightly, “Denial of service resilience in ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the 10th annual international 16 # conference on Mobile computing and networking, Philadelphia PA USA: ACM, Sep. 2004, pp. 202–215. doi: 10.1145/1023720.1023741

    2004

  61. [79]

    Integration of SDR and UAS for malicious Wi-Fi hotspots detection,

    J. Wang, N. Juarez, E. Kohm, Y. Liu, J. Yuan, and H. Song, “Integration of SDR and UAS for malicious Wi-Fi hotspots detection,” in 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

  62. [80]

    Exact rate analysis for quantum repeaters with imperfect memories and entanglement swapping as soon as possible,

    L. Kamin, E. Shchukin, F. Schmidt, and P. Van Loock, “Exact rate analysis for quantum repeaters with imperfect memories and entanglement swapping as soon as possible,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 5, no. 2, p. 023086, May 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.023086

    2023 doi

  63. [81]

    Distributed routing in a quantum internet,

    K. Chakraborty, F. Rozpedek, A. Dahlberg, and S. Wehner, “Distributed routing in a quantum internet,” Jul. 26, 2019, arXiv: arXiv:1907.11630. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.11630

    2019 doi arXiv

  64. [82]

    Decentralized base-graph routing for the quantum internet,

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, “Decentralized base-graph routing for the quantum internet,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 98, no. 2, p. 022310, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022310

    2018 doi

  65. [83]

    A quantum network of clocks,

    P. Kómár et al., “A quantum network of clocks,” Nat. Phys., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 582–587, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1038/nphys3000

    2014 doi

  66. [84]

    Distributed quantum computing: a distributed Shor algorithm,

    A. Yimsiriwattana and S. J. L. Jr, “Distributed quantum computing: a distributed Shor algorithm,” in Quantum Information and Computation II, SPIE, Aug. 2004, pp. 360–372. doi: 10.1117/12.546504

    2004 doi

  67. [86]

    Distributed Grover’s algorithm,

    D. Qiu, L. Luo, and L. Xiao, “Distributed Grover’s algorithm,” Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 993, p. 114461, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2024.114461

    2024

  68. [87]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    P. W. Shor, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation,” in Proceedings of 37th conference on foundations of computer science, IEEE, 1996, pp. 56–65

    1996

  69. [89]

    Neural Error Mitigation of Near-Term Quantum Simulations,

    E. R. Bennewitz, F. Hopfmueller, B. Kulchytskyy, J. Carrasquilla, and P. Ronagh, “Neural Error Mitigation of Near-Term Quantum Simulations,” Nat. Mach. Intell., vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 618–624, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1038/s42256-022-00509-0

    2022 doi

  70. [90]

    Complete physical simulation of the entangling-probe attack on the Bennett-Brassard 1984 protocol,

    T. Kim, I. Stork Genannt Wersborg, F. N. C. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, “Complete physical simulation of the entangling-probe attack on the Bennett-Brassard 1984 protocol,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 75, no. 4, p. 042327, Apr. 2007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.042327

    1984 doi

  71. [91]

    Unconditional optimality of Gaussian attacks against continuous-variable QKD,

    R. Garcia-Patron and N. J. Cerf, “Unconditional optimality of Gaussian attacks against continuous-variable QKD,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 97, no. 19, p. 190503, Nov. 2006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.190503

    2006 doi

  72. [94]

    Security of Quantum Cryptography against Collective Attacks,

    E. Biham and T. Mor, “Security of Quantum Cryptography against Collective Attacks,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 78, no. 11, pp. 2256–2259, Mar. 1997, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2256. Zebo Yang (Graduate Student Member, IEEE) received an M.E. in computer engineering from Waseda Uni...

    2019 doi

  73. [136]

    doi: 10.1109/ISIT.2004.1365172

    2004 arXiv

  74. [2004]

    Proceedings., Jun. 2004, p

    2004

  75. [2005]

    2005, pp

    New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Nov. 2005, pp. 107–116. doi: 10.1145/1102219.1102238

    2005

  76. [2013]

    and a Ph.D

    He obtained an M.S. and a Ph.D. in computer engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, USA, in 2017 and 2024, respectively. He is currently a lecturer at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia. Ali has been a Graduate Research Assistant at W...

    2017

  77. [2018]

    The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis

    His research focuses on network and system security, IoT, the Internet of Medical Things, and healthcare systems. Raj Jain (Life Fellow, IEEE) received a B.E. in electrical engineering from APS University, India, and an M.E. from the Indian Institute of Science. He obtained hi...

    2004

  78. [2020]

    2020, pp

    New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jul. 2020, pp. 62–75. doi: 10.1145/3387514.3405853

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.