Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 43 references

Secure Data Access in Cloud Environments Using Quantum Cryptography

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that combining quantum key distribution (QKD), the BB84 protocol, and the quantum one-time pad (QOTP) makes cloud data access secure against both classical attacks and future quantum computers, reporting 99.5 percent…

desk verdict A textbook BB84/OTP recap with unsupported simulation numbers; the missing authenticated classical channel is a fatal flaw that makes the claimed security false even in ideal conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10028 v1 pith:2NYSULBG submitted 2025-06-10 cs.CR cs.CV

S. Vasavi Venkata Lakshmi , Ziaul Haque Choudhury This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.CV MSC 81P9494A60 PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords quantumcryptographycloudsecurityBB84protocolkeydistributionone-timepadeavesdroppingdetectionbrute-forceresistancepost-quantum
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 tries to establish that a cloud security system built from three quantum ingredients—QKD for key exchange, the BB84 protocol for that exchange, and the quantum one-time pad (QOTP) for encryption—can protect stored and shared data against classical attacks and against future quantum computers. Because measuring a photon disturbs its quantum state and cannot be done silently, BB84 makes any attempted eavesdropping detectable, while QOTP's XOR encryption with a random, same-length, single-use key leaves ciphertext with no statistical pattern and no brute-force route. If the claim holds, cloud users would get data confidentiality that rests on physical law rather than computational hardness, at a reported cost of roughly 3.8 milliseconds of encryption time and 4.1 milliseconds of decryption time per operation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing pair is BB84 plus QOTP. BB84 is the first quantum key distribution protocol: Alice sends photons polarized in one of two randomly chosen bases, Bob measures in randomly chosen bases, the two publicly compare bases and keep only matching bits, and eavesdropping is detected because measurement disturbs quantum states—the no-cloning theorem rules out silent copying. QOTP is the one-time pad keyed by that quantum process: each plaintext bit is XORed with a key bit, with the key the same length as the message, random, single-use, and secret, so the ciphertext $C = M \oplus K_{\mathrm{final}}$ is statistically pattern-free and decryption $M = C \oplus K_{\mathrm{final}}$ recovers the message. The machinery's job is to make key exchange provably private (BB84) and encryption provably unbreakable (QOTP), converting cloud data security from a computational assumption into a physical guarantee.

What would settle it

Run the system on real hardware with an attacker performing intercept-and-resend on a controlled fraction of BB84 pulses, and check whether the induced quantum bit error rate exceeds the protocol's threshold in the claimed 99.5 percent of trials; separately audit the key store for any reuse, since if two ciphertexts ever share a pad bit their XOR yields $p_1 \oplus p_2$, the exact break the paper's own Venona example describes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that the combination of QKD, BB84, and QOTP “creates a safe and reliable way to keep data secure when it is stored or shared in the cloud.” The security story has two linked parts: BB84 lets the cloud and the user distill a shared secret key whose privacy is guaranteed by quantum mechanics, since any interception disturbs photon states and surfaces as errors, and QOTP then encrypts the data by XORing it with that key, so the ciphertext reveals nothing about the plaintext as long as the key is truly random, as long as the message, used exactly once, and kept secret. The paper reports simulation results of 99.5 percent eavesdropping detection, 98.7 percent man-in-the-middle detection, and 100 percent resistance to brute-force decryption attempts, with key-generation time growing from 1.2 to 6.8 milliseconds as users scale from 10 to 1000.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme presupposes that a practical quantum channel—single-photon sources and detectors over optical fiber or free-space links between the cloud and every user—can deliver keys as long as the messages at the required rate, yet the paper provides no loss budget, no dark-count analysis, and no measured distance to support the 100–400 kilometer figures in its own performance table.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, cloud data becomes confidential against adversaries with unlimited computing power, including quantum computers running Shor's algorithm.
  • Eavesdropping changes from a hidden threat into a detectable event, because interception of the key exchange leaves a measurable disturbance in quantum states.
  • The architecture—registration, login, QKD key generation, basis comparison, OTP encryption and decryption—provides a concrete template for a quantum-secure cloud access service.
  • The reported overhead (encryption and decryption near 4 milliseconds, key generation reaching 6.8 milliseconds at 1000 users) suggests the security gain need not come at an unusable cost in latency.
  • The scheme's own four OTP conditions define the operational discipline a deployment would have to enforce: key length equal to message, random choice, single use, and secrecy of the key.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'quantum one-time pad' implemented here is the classical XOR one-time pad whose key is supplied by QKD; its unconditional security therefore inherits entirely from the four classical OTP conditions plus the secrecy of the exchanged key.
  • The 99.5 and 98.7 percent detection figures come from simulations, not field trials; on real hardware, detection is governed by the quantum bit error rate against the protocol's threshold, so those percentages are testable only once a loss budget and distance are specified.
  • A plausible deployment path is hybrid: use QKD to refresh symmetric keys such as AES-256 rather than encrypting every byte one-time-pad style, since pad bits must match message length and any reuse breaks the ciphertext—the failure mode the paper itself describes with the Venona example.
  • If practical quantum channels remain the bottleneck, the scheme's value concentrates on high-value short-range links such as data-center interconnects and satellite QKD for wide areas, which is the reach implied by the paper's own performance table rather than demonstrated by its experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a cloud data-access security scheme that combines Quantum Key Distribution via the BB84 protocol (§3.1, §3.3–3.9) with a quantum one-time pad for XOR encryption (§3.2, §3.10–3.11), preceded by user registration and login steps (§3.6–3.7). The paper claims that the combination is unconditionally secure against classical and quantum adversaries (§1, §5) and reports experimental results: 99.5% eavesdropping-attack detection (§4.2), 98.7% MITM detection (§4.3), 100% brute-force resistance (§4.4), and millisecond-scale encryption/decryption times (§4.5–4.6). The manuscript contains no explicit threat model, no simulation or measurement methodology, and none of the cited figures appears in the text.

Significance. The underlying textbook components are, in isolation, real: the BB84 sifting procedure in Table 2 and §3.8–3.9 follows the standard protocol; the four one-time-pad conditions in §3.2 are the classical correctness conditions; and the no-cloning basis for eavesdropping detection (§3.1, [23]) is standard. These are the paper's genuine strengths, but they are imported from prior literature rather than developed. The stress-test concern lands: the paper is not circular, but the composition is missing a component it needs—authentication of the classical channel—and that is a protocol-level failure, not a hardware-practicality quibble; the distance/loss concerns are secondary. If the missing component were supplied and the headline numbers were backed by a reproducible experiment, this could be a useful applied demonstration. As written, the positive content is a correct restatement of textbook material and every quantitative claim in Section 4 is unverifiable: there is no machine-checked proof, no reproducible code, and no reported data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §3.6–§3.9] The scheme's central confidentiality claim fails even under ideal quantum hardware because the BB84 classical channel is not authenticated. Section 3.1 states that the classical channel 'can be any conventional network link, such as the internet or a phone network' and lists 'an authentication component to ensure the prevention of man-in-the-middle attacks' as a generic QKD system requirement, but the proposed architecture never specifies or uses such a component: §3.6–3.7 provide only username/password login and a public/private key pair whose cryptosystem and usage are never described, and §3.9 has Alice and Bob compare bases 'over an open channel.' An adversary who intercepts the quantum channel and relays the classical channel can run two independent BB84 sessions, one with the user and one with the cloud, and can then sift positions so that each victim observes a zero-error session; the eavesdropping detection claimed in §4.2 and §4.3 therefore never triggers. The resulting 'final key' of §3.10 is known to the adversary, which defeats the QOTP encryption in §3.10–3.11. This is not a hardware-practicality issue: it is a protocol-level gap that must be closed with a pre-shared secret or a quantum-safe signature bound to the reconciliation messages.
  2. [§4.2–§4.4] Sections 4.2–4.4 report detection rates of 99.5% for eavesdropping, 98.7% for MITM attacks, and 100% resistance to brute-force decryption, but the paper contains no simulation setup, no attack-generation method, no dataset, no measured values, and no error bars; Fig. 2, which is cited as the error-detection evidence, is absent from the manuscript. The numbers are therefore not checkable, and the 100% brute-force figure is especially problematic because, for a correctly used one-time pad (§3.2), this is the definition of information-theoretic security rather than an experimental finding; the comparison with AES and RSA claimed in §4.4 requires an actual brute-force experiment that is not described. As submitted, the headline experimental claims of the abstract and Section 4 are unsupported.
  3. [§4.5–§4.6] The performance and scalability claims in §4.5–4.6 are unverifiable: QOTP encryption/decryption times of 3.8 ms and 4.1 ms, AES-256 times of 2.1 ms and 2.3 ms, and key-generation times rising from 1.2 ms to 6.8 ms for user counts of 10 to 1000 are reported without any statement of hardware, message size, key length, measurement procedure, or number of trials. The unnumbered performance-metrics table in §4.5 also asserts a 100–400 km distance range, an 11% QBER tolerance, and Mbps key-generation rates without derivation or citation, and Fig. 5 ('Performances'), which is supposed to display these data, is absent. Because these figures carry the paper's stated contribution of a practical and scalable scheme (§1, §5), they need to be backed by a reproducible measurement.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3, §4] Section ordering and numbering are inconsistent: §3.2 ('Quantum One-time pad') appears before §3.1 ('The Quantum Key Distribution'), and there are two subsections numbered 4.6 ('Scalability Assessment' and 'Comparative Analysis with Classical Methods').
  2. [Table 1, §3.8] Table 1 contains empty cells: the polarization states for the rectilinear and diagonal bases are not filled in, and §3.8 describes the rectilinear basis with garbled glyphs ('Horizontal (|) represents 0 and vertical (-) represents 1'), contradicting Table 2 and §3.3, where horizontal is 0° and vertical is 90°.
  3. [Figs. 1–5] Figures 1–5 are referenced throughout the manuscript but none appears in the text, so the claimed architecture (Fig. 1), the error-detection rate (Fig. 2), the processing time (Fig. 3), and the accuracy/performance comparisons (Figs. 4–5) cannot be inspected.
  4. [§3.2] The term 'Quantum One-Time Pad' (§3.2) is used for a classical XOR one-time pad keyed by QKD output; in the quantum-cryptography literature this name usually refers to a different primitive based on quantum gates or entanglement, so the terminology should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  5. [§3.5] Section 3.5 states that 'if even an attacker obtains the encryption key, they cannot decrypt the data since the key can never be reused,' which is backwards: a one-time pad is secure only while the key remains secret; key compromise enables decryption. The sentence should be corrected.
  6. [§4.6] The sentence in §4.6 ('AES–256 is fast, but RSA is faster than RSA') is incoherent, and the paragraph appears to compare key-exchange security (RSA) with symmetric encryption (AES) without distinguishing the roles.
  7. [References] References [12], [26], and [27] are listed in the bibliography but never cited in the text, and several DOI strings in the reference list (e.g., [3], [5], [6]) are formatted inconsistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's security claims inherit standard QKD/BB84/QOTP theorems rather than reducing to fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is QKD (BB84) generates a shared key, and QOTP encrypts via C = M XOR K_final (Section 3.10, eq. [3]) with decryption M = C XOR K_final (Section 3.11). Both steps are applications of established external results: BB84's eavesdropping detection is anchored to the no-cloning theorem and Heisenberg uncertainty [22][23], and OTP secrecy to the four conditions stated in Section 3.2 [28]. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction; the percentage claims in Sections 4.2-4.4 are unsupported assertions, not quantities derived from the paper's equations or from prior work by the same authors. There are no self-citations at all, so no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' own unverified work. The design's lack of an authenticated classical channel (Section 3.9 says bases are exchanged 'over an open channel') is a serious correctness/security flaw, and the 'simulation' results appear to restate protocol properties rather than report measurements; but those are evidentiary weaknesses, not circularity. The claimed confidentiality is not equivalent to the input by construction; it depends on external theorems whose assumptions (authenticated classical channel, true single-photon sources, low loss) are not met or demonstrated. Verdict: no circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new parameters or entities; the numbers in Section 4 are asserted simulation results with no methodology and are treated here as free parameters because they are introduced ad hoc. The security relies on standard quantum-mechanical assumptions and classical OTP key-management requirements from prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Eavesdropping detection rate = 99.5%
    Reported in §4.2 as a simulation result, but no simulation setup, parameters, or raw data are provided, so the value is an unverified assertion.
  • MITM detection rate = 98.7%
    Reported in §4.3 without any methodology or data, so it is an unverified assertion.
  • Brute-force resistance = 100%
    Reported in §4.4; presented as a property of the protocol rather than a measured outcome, and the actual encryption is a classical one-time pad.
  • QOTP encryption/decryption time = 3.8 ms / 4.1 ms
    Reported in §4.5 with no hardware, key length, or measurement procedure; cannot be independently checked.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Quantum no-cloning theorem and Heisenberg uncertainty ensure that eavesdropping on BB84 is detectable.
    Invoked in §3.1 and §4.2 as the security basis; not proved in the paper, cited to standard references.
  • domain assumption A practical quantum channel with single-photon sources and detectors is available between the cloud and each user.
    The architecture in §3.5 assumes this infrastructure, but the paper gives no loss budget, dark-count analysis, or distance model.
  • domain assumption The one-time pad key is truly random, as long as the message, used only once, and kept secret by both parties.
    The encryption security in §3.10 depends on these classical OTP conditions; the paper asserts them but does not analyze key management or key reuse.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure Data Access in Cloud Environments Using Quantum Cryptography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NYSULBG

@misc{pith2026250610028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure Data Access in Cloud Environments Using Quantum Cryptography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NYSULBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10028}
}
read the original abstract

Cloud computing has made storing and accessing data easier but keeping it secure is a big challenge nowadays. Traditional methods of ensuring data may not be strong enough in the future when powerful quantum computers become available. To solve this problem, this study uses quantum cryptography to protect data in the cloud environment. Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) creates secure keys by sending information using quantum particles like photons. Specifically, we use the BB84 protocol, a simple and reliable way to make secure keys that cannot be stolen without detection. To protect the data, we use the Quantum One Time pad (QOTP) for encryption and decryption, ensuring the data stays completely private. This study shows how these Quantum methods can be applied in cloud systems to provide a strong defense against hackers, even if they have access to quantum computers. The combination of QKD, BB84, and QOTP creates a safe and reliable way to keep data secure when it is stored or shared in the cloud. Using quantum cryptography, this paper provides a way to ensure data security now and in the future, making cloud computing safer for everyone to store their data securely and safely.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10028 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The data encryption using quantum cryptography In quantum cryptography, the quantum The unbreakable encryption technique known as one-time pad (QOTP) requires the use of a single-use pre-shared key that is at least as large as the message being sent. This method uses a random secret key, often known as a one-time pad, in conjunction with plaintext. Modular addition is then used to combine each bit or character of th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data processing time 4.5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION The performance of the quantum cryptography–based cloud security system was evaluated by measuring the encryption and decryption times of the system and comparing them with the classical encryptions. For AES -256 took about 2.1 milliseconds to encrypt and 2.3 milliseconds to decrypt. The accuracy is high when encrypt the data with the QKD with QOTP and also the securit… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    A Novel Image Cryptosystem Inspired by the Generation of Biological Protein Sequences,

    M. A. Jan, M. Ghaffar, M. Ahmed, and S. Khan, "A Novel Image Cryptosystem Inspired by the Generation of Biological Protein Sequences," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 183661–183669, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3028701

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    pay-as- you-use

    INTRODUCTION Cloud Computing has revolutionized the digital era, turning the internet into a boundless warehouse of computing resources. With just an internet connection, individuals and businesses can tap into vast computational resources that scale with their needs. This “pay-as- you-use” model has broken down technological barriers, empowering startups...

    work page

  3. [2]

    The methods are quite complicated because they use many steps, such as DNA -EXOR, DNASF, and other rules, which may take extra time [1]

    LITERATURE SURVEY The literature survey highlights security challenges in cloud computing. The methods are quite complicated because they use many steps, such as DNA -EXOR, DNASF, and other rules, which may take extra time [1]. As more users and data owners join the system, the way the model improves data access times may also not work, leading to slower ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    PROPOSED METHOD The proposed method describes Quantum Cryptography, which secures data access in the cloud environment. By applying Quantum One –Time Pad (QOTP) data encryption and decryption is done and utilize Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) for secure key generation based on the BB84 protocol for communication. This framework ensures secure, scalable, a...

    work page

  5. [4]

    The plaintext's length and the key's length must match

    1. The plaintext's length and the key's length must match

    work page

  6. [5]

    It is necessary to choose the key at random

    work page

  7. [6]

    The key must never be partially or fully used again

    work page

  8. [7]

    In particular, one-time usage is essential

    All communication parties must maintain complete confidentiality regarding the key. In particular, one-time usage is essential. For instance, the following are the matching ciphertexts if two separate plaintext messages, p1 and p2, are both encrypted with the same key, k: 𝑐1 = 𝑝1 ⊕ 𝑘 [1] 𝑐2 = 𝑝2 ⊕ 𝑘 [2] Here ⊕ means XOR, denotes the operation of bit by bi...

    work page 1984

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Alice chooses a set of N classical bits X1,...XN that are evenly distributed

  2. [9]

    A measurement in one basis does not provide any information on a bit that is encoded in the other basis, demonstrating the unbiased nature of these two bases

    Alice can choose the diagonal basis (D) or the rectilinear basis (R) from a series of random polarization bases. A measurement in one basis does not provide any information on a bit that is encoded in the other basis, demonstrating the unbiased nature of these two bases

  3. [10]

    When Bob gets the photons, he chooses at random (without Alice's help!) whether to measure each one in the diagonal or rectilinear basis to get classical bits

    Alice successfully transfers her bit string into an assembly of photons that are polarized with respect to the chosen bases. When Bob gets the photons, he chooses at random (without Alice's help!) whether to measure each one in the diagonal or rectilinear basis to get classica...

  4. [11]

    The rectilinear basis (“+”): Horizontal (|) represents 0 and vertical (-) represents 1

  5. [12]

    +” or “x

    The diagonal basis (“x”): A diagonal at 45 0 (/) represents 0, and a diagonal at 135 0 () represents 1. When Bob measures these photons, he has no idea wh at basis Alice uses, so he just randomly selects a basis–either “+” or “x”–to measure each photon. If Bob's basis is the s...

  6. [13]

    A Schema-based DNA Algorithm Applicable on Graphic Processing Units

    Kao – Shing Hwang, Yu – Jen Chen and Wei – Cheng Jiang, “A Schema-based DNA Algorithm Applicable on Graphic Processing Units”, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2569590

    2016

  7. [14]

    Fast and Secure Data Accessing by Using DNA Computing for the Cloud Environment

    Suyel Namasudra, “Fast and Secure Data Accessing by Using DNA Computing for the Cloud Environment”, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 15, no.4, July/August 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    DNA Similarity Search with Access Control Over Encrypted Cloud Data

    Guowen Xu, Hongwei Li, Hao Ren, Xiaodong Lin, Xuemin (Sherman) Shen, “DNA Similarity Search with Access Control Over Encrypted Cloud Data”, IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, vol.10, no.2, April – June 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    Secure Data Storage and Sharing Techniques for Data Protection in Cloud Environments: A Systematic Review, Analysis, and Future Direction

    Ishu Gupta, Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Chung -Nan Lee, and Rajkumar Buyya, “Secure Data Storage and Sharing Techniques for Data Protection in Cloud Environments: A Systematic Review, Analysis, and Future Direction”, IEEE Access, vol.10, pp. 71242- 71273, Jul.2022.DOI: 10,1109/ACCES...

    2022

  10. [17]

    Data Security and Privacy Using DNA Cryptography and AES Method in Cloud Computing

    A. Kumar, “Data Security and Privacy Using DNA Cryptography and AES Method in Cloud Computing”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud) (I-SMAC), pp. 1529–1535, IEEE, 2021. DOI: 10.1109/I-SMAC52330.2021. 9640708

    2021

  11. [18]

    Distributed Machine Learning Oriented Data Integrity Verification Scheme in Cloud Computing Environment

    Xiao–Ping Zhao and Jiang, “Distributed Machine Learning Oriented Data Integrity Verification Scheme in Cloud Computing Environment”, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS 2020.2971519

    2020

  12. [19]

    Data and Information Leakage Prevention within the Scope of Information Security

    BARBARA HAUER, “Data and Information Leakage Prevention within the Scope of Information Security”, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2506185

    2015

  13. [20]

    An Improved Authentication Scheme for Remote Data Access and Sharing Over Cloud Storage in Cyber -Physical-Social- Systems,

    M. Ghaffar, M. Ahmed, M. A. Jan, and S. Khan, "An Improved Authentication Scheme for Remote Data Access and Sharing Over Cloud Storage in Cyber -Physical-Social- Systems," IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 5189 –5200, Dec. 2020. DOI: 10.1109/JSYST.2020.2975582.”

    2020

  14. [21]

    A DNA Computation -Based Image Encryption Scheme for Cloud CCTV Systems,

    T.-Y. Wu, X. Fan, F. Wang, and J. M. -T. Wu, "A DNA Computation -Based Image Encryption Scheme for Cloud CCTV Systems," IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 183661 – 183669, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2960590

    2019

  15. [22]

    A Data Security Enhanced Access Control Mechanism in Mobile Edge Computing,

    Y. Zhang, J. Ren, and W. Zhang, "A Data Security Enhanced Access Control Mechanism in Mobile Edge Computing," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 48973–48984, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979831

    2020

  16. [24]

    Modified DNA-based Cryptography System in the Cloud

    Garima Verma, “Modified DNA-based Cryptography System in the Cloud”, Journal of Web Engineering, Vol. 22_8, 1075-1100, doi:10.13052/jwe1540-9589.2281

  17. [25]

    Encryption Algorithm Based on DNA Strand Displacement and DNA Sequence Operation,

    Chengye Zou, Xiaopeng Wei, Qiang Zhang, Changjun Zhou, Shuang Zhou, “Encryption Algorithm Based on DNA Strand Displacement and DNA Sequence Operation,” IEEE Transactions on Nanobioscience, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 223 -234, April

  18. [26]

    The Codebreakers

    Kahn, David (1996). The Codebreakers . Macmillan. pp. 402–3. ISBN 978-0-684- 83130-5

    1996

  19. [27]

    National Security Agency | Central Security Service > About Us > Cryptologic Heritage > Historical Figures and Publications > Publications > WWII > Sigsaly Story

    "National Security Agency | Central Security Service > About Us > Cryptologic Heritage > Historical Figures and Publications > Publications > WWII > Sigsaly Story". 2019-02-24. Archived from the original on 2019-02-24. Retrieved 2022-03-27

    2019

  20. [28]

    Data Security and Privacy Protection for Cloud Storage: A Survey

    P. Yang, N. Xiong, and J. Ren, “Data Security and Privacy Protection for Cloud Storage: A Survey”, IEEE Access, vol.8, pp. 131723-131740, Jul.2020.DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3009876

    2020

  21. [29]

    A Survey on DNA-based Cryptography and Steganography

    Tasnuva Mahiabin, Alina Olteanu, Yang Xiao, Wenlin Han, Tieshan Li, and Wei Sun, “A Survey on DNA-based Cryptography and Steganography”, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3324875

    2023

  22. [30]

    Audio Encryption Scheme using Self -Adaptive Bit Scrambling and Two Multi Chaotic-based Dynamic DNA Computations

    Roayat Ismail Abdelfatah, “Audio Encryption Scheme using Self -Adaptive Bit Scrambling and Two Multi Chaotic-based Dynamic DNA Computations”, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2987197

    2020

  23. [31]

    Hiding messages based on DNA sequence and recombinant DNA technique,

    Y. Wang, Q. Han, G. Cui, and J. Sun, “Hiding messages based on DNA sequence and recombinant DNA technique,” IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol., vol. 18, pp. 299 –307, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ TNANO.2019.2904842

    2019

  24. [32]

    A Data Sharing Protocol to Minimize Security and Privacy Risks of Cloud Storage in Big Data Era

    SI Han, Ke Han, and Shouyi Zhang, “A Data Sharing Protocol to Minimize Security and Privacy Risks of Cloud Storage in Big Data Era”, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2914862

    2019

  25. [33]

    Secure DNA and Morse code -based Profile access control models for Cloud Computing Environment

    Monika Yadav, Manvi Breja, “Secure DNA and Morse code -based Profile access control models for Cloud Computing Environment”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol.167, pp.2590-2598, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.317

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Secure End-to-End Voice Communication: A Comprehensive Review of Steganography Modern-based Cryptography, and Chaotic Cryptography Techniques

    Albertus Anugerah Pekerti, Arif Sasongko, and Adi Indrayanto, “Secure End-to-End Voice Communication: A Comprehensive Review of Steganography Modern-based Cryptography, and Chaotic Cryptography Techniques”, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3405317

  27. [35]

    A modified key Sifting Scheme with Artificial Neural Network Based Key Reconciliation Analysis in Quantum Cryptography

    Chitra Biswas, MD. Mokammel Haque, and Udayan Das Gupta, “A modified key Sifting Scheme with Artificial Neural Network Based Key Reconciliation Analysis in Quantum Cryptography”, Digital Object identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3188798

    2022

  28. [36]

    Cobourne, Quantum key distribution protocols and applications, Dept

    S. Cobourne, Quantum key distribution protocols and applications, Dept. Math., Roy. Holloway, Univ. London, Egham, U.K., Tech. Rep. RHUL-MA-2011-05, Mar. 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature, vol. 299, pp. 802803, Oct. 1982

    1982

  30. [38]

    L. O. Mailloux, D. D. Hodson, M. R. Grimaila, R. D. Engle, C. V. McLaughlin, and G. B. Baumgartner, Using modeling and sim ulation to study photon number splitting attacks, IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 21882197, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput., Syst., Signal Process., Bengaluru, India, Dec. 1984, pp. 175179

    1984

  32. [42]

    One-Time Pad

    Lugrin, Thomas (2023), Mulder, Valentin; Mermoud, Alain; Lenders, Vincent; Tellenbach, Bernhard (eds.), "One-Time Pad", Trends in Data Protection and Encryption Technologies, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 3–6, doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 33386-6_1, ISBN 978-3-031-33386-6

    2023 doi

  33. [43]

    The Translations and KGB Cryptographic Systems

    "The Translations and KGB Cryptographic Systems" (PDF). The Venona Story. Fort Meade, Maryland: National Security Agency. 2004-01-15. pp. 26–27 (28–29th of 63 in PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-05-10. Retrieved 2009-05-03. KGB's cryptographic material manufactur...

    2004

  34. [1101]

    This method ensures that the message is readable by only the receiver (Bob) can understand the message, as they are the only ones with the correct quantum key

    Since XOR twice with the same key restores the original message, the receiver (Bob) is the only one to decode the message, as he i s the only one who will have the correct quantum key. This method ensures that the message is readable by only the receiver (Bob) can understand t...

  35. [2021]

    DOI: 10.1109/TNB.2021.3058399

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.