Hacking measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution

Konstantin Zaitsev; Polina Acheva

arxiv: 2607.01989 · v1 · pith:66AZ4PI6new · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

Hacking measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution

Konstantin Zaitsev , Polina Acheva This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 12:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords MDI-QKDquantum key distributionsecurity attackadversarial controlmeasurement device independencequantum cryptographyQKD vulnerabilities

0 comments

The pith

An adversary controlling the MDI-QKD measurement device can recover up to 70% of the sifted key at 5.6% error rate.

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

MDI-QKD was designed so that all measurements can be performed by a completely untrusted party, removing single-photon detector vulnerabilities. The paper shows that this security model fails when the adversary has active control over the measurement node. Their attack allows recovery of up to 70% of the sifted key while introducing only 5.6% quantum bit error rate. A sympathetic reader would care because it reveals that the standard assumption about untrusted measurement nodes does not hold under realistic adversarial conditions. The authors conclude that additional constraints or refined security analyses are required.

Core claim

The paper claims that the assumption that the measurement node can be treated as adversarial but does not compromise the security guarantees of the protocol is insufficient under realistic adversarial control of the measurement device, as shown by an attack that enables recovery of up to 70% of the sifted key while introducing only 5.6% quantum bit error rate, demonstrating a limitation of the standard security model.

What carries the argument

The attack that exploits active control of the measurement node (Charlie) to manipulate detection outcomes and extract substantial key information while keeping the error rate low.

If this is right

MDI-QKD protocols require additional constraints on the measurement device to maintain security.
Refined security analyses must incorporate stronger adversarial capabilities for the measurement node.
Practical implementations may need to limit the extent of control an untrusted party can exert over the measurement setup.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This attack suggests that other QKD protocols relying on untrusted nodes may face similar vulnerabilities under active control.
Future security proofs could explicitly model real-time manipulation of measurement outcomes rather than treating the node as a static black box.

Load-bearing premise

An adversary with active control of the measurement device cannot obtain significant information about the secret key beyond what the standard MDI-QKD security model already accounts for.

What would settle it

An experiment demonstrating that full active control of the measurement node cannot recover more than a negligible fraction of the sifted key without raising the quantum bit error rate above 5.6% would falsify the attack's reported effectiveness.

read the original abstract

The security of practical quantum key distribution (QKD) systems is fundamentally constrained by vulnerabilities of single-photon detectors. Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution (MDI-QKD) was proposed to remove this limitation by allowing all measurements to be performed by a completely untrusted party, under the assumption that the measurement node can be treated as adversarial but does not compromise the security guarantees of the protocol. Here we show that this assumption is insufficient under realistic adversarial control of the measurement device. We present an attack in which an adversary exploits active control of the measurement node (Charlie) to obtain significant information about the secret key. The attack enables recovery of up to 70\% of the sifted key while introducing only 5.6\% quantum bit error rate. Unlike previously reported attacks targeting specific implementations of MDI-QKD, our results demonstrate a limitation of the standard security model underlying the protocol. These findings indicate that additional constraints on the measurement-device independence assumption, or refined security analyses incorporating stronger adversarial capabilities, are required to ensure the security of MDI-QKD in realistic scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims a general attack on MDI-QKD that recovers 70% of the sifted key at low QBER, but provides no details on how it interacts with the phase-error bounds that underpin the proofs.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors describe an attack exploiting active control of the measurement node in MDI-QKD to leak up to 70% of the sifted key while keeping QBER at 5.6%, and they argue this hits the general security model rather than just specific implementations.

What is new is the focus on the core assumption that an adversarial but untrusted measurement device does not compromise the protocol's guarantees. The paper states the potential need for tighter constraints or revised analyses.

It does a clear job laying out the practical stakes for MDI-QKD in quantum networks and contrasting the claim with prior implementation-specific attacks.

The soft spots are substantial and central. The abstract supplies no derivation, simulation setup, or explanation of how the attack affects X-basis statistics or preserves the usual relation between bit-flip and phase-flip errors. The stress-test concern lands: if the attack selectively leaks Z-basis information without raising X-errors beyond the observed QBER, it would directly challenge existing proofs, but nothing in the provided text shows whether that is the case or whether the attack already falls inside the standard bounds. Without those steps, the result cannot be assessed.

This is for researchers working on QKD security models and practical deployments. A reader in that niche would want to see the full attack construction to decide if it requires changes to analyses.

Send it to peer review so referees can check the methods and whether the attack actually evades the phase-error bound.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the standard MDI-QKD security model is insufficient because an adversary with active control of the untrusted measurement node (Charlie) can recover up to 70% of the sifted key while inducing only 5.6% QBER, thereby demonstrating a limitation of the assumption that treating the measurement device as adversarial is adequate for security.

Significance. If the attack is shown to evade the phase-error bound derived from observed X-basis errors in standard MDI-QKD proofs, the result would be significant: it would indicate that the security model requires additional constraints on adversarial capabilities or refined analyses to remain valid under realistic device control.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the attack recovers 70% of the sifted key at 5.6% QBER does not specify how active control of Charlie affects the X-basis error statistics or whether the attack preserves the standard relation between bit-flip and phase-flip errors that MDI-QKD proofs use to bound Eve's information on the Z-basis key.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and for identifying an important point of clarification regarding our abstract. We address the comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the attack recovers 70% of the sifted key at 5.6% QBER does not specify how active control of Charlie affects the X-basis error statistics or whether the attack preserves the standard relation between bit-flip and phase-flip errors that MDI-QKD proofs use to bound Eve's information on the Z-basis key.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional detail on this point. The attack uses active control of the measurement device to manipulate the Bell-state projections performed at Charlie. This control is exercised such that the observed Z-basis QBER remains 5.6% while the adversary obtains up to 70% of the sifted key bits. The same active manipulation is applied to the X-basis measurements, keeping the X-basis error rate at a level consistent with the Z-basis QBER. However, because the measurement outcomes are under adversarial control rather than being passive projections, the standard relation between bit-flip and phase-flip errors assumed in MDI-QKD security proofs is not preserved; the phase-error bound therefore does not correctly upper-bound Eve's information. We will revise the abstract (and add a short clarifying paragraph in the main text) to state explicitly that the attack maintains low observed X-basis errors while circumventing the bit-flip/phase-flip relation through active device control. This is the central demonstration that the standard security model is insufficient under realistic adversarial capabilities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; attack description is externally specified and does not reduce to the MDI-QKD security model by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an explicit attack construction on the measurement node that recovers up to 70% of the sifted key at 5.6% QBER. This is presented as a concrete adversarial strategy rather than a quantity derived from or fitted to the standard MDI-QKD phase-error bound. No equations or steps in the provided text equate the attack outcome to the input security assumptions by definition, and no self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or an ansatz. The result stands as an independent counter-example to the model's sufficiency under the stated adversarial capabilities.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based solely on abstract; no specific free parameters, axioms beyond standard quantum mechanics, or invented entities are described.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard assumptions of quantum mechanics and QKD security proofs
The protocol and attack are defined within these background assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5710 in / 1041 out tokens · 47118 ms · 2026-07-03T12:00:36.733809+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, pp

Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G.: Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, pp. 175–179. IEEE Press, Bangalore, India (1984)

1984
[2]

Physical Review Letters67(6), 661–663 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661

Ekert, A.K.: Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem. Physical Review Letters67(6), 661–663 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.67.661 1991
[3]

Journal of the ACM 48(3), 351–406 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1145/382780.382781

Mayers, D.: Unconditional security in quantum cryptography. Journal of the ACM 48(3), 351–406 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1145/382780.382781

work page doi:10.1145/382780.382781 2001
[4]

Science283(5410), 2050–2056 (1999) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.283.5410.2050

Lo, H.-K., Chau, H.F.: Unconditional security of quantum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances. Science283(5410), 2050–2056 (1999) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.283.5410.2050

work page doi:10.1126/science.283.5410.2050 2050
[6]

Physical Review Letters85(6), 1330–1333 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1330 17

Brassard, G., L”utkenhaus, N., Mor, T., Sanders, B.C.: Limitations on practical quantum cryptography. Physical Review Letters85(6), 1330–1333 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1330 17

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.1330 2000
[7]

Physical Review A73(2), 022320 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022320

Gisin, N., Fasel, S., Kraus, B., Zbinden, H., Ribordy, G.: Trojan-horse attacks on quantum-key-distribution systems. Physical Review A73(2), 022320 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022320

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.73.022320 2006
[8]

Physical Review A74(2), 022313 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022313

Makarov, V., Anisimov, A., Skaar, J.: Effects of detector efficiency mismatch on security of quantum cryptosystems. Physical Review A74(2), 022313 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022313 . Erratum: Physical Review A 78, 019905 (2008)

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.74.022313 2006
[9]

Nature Photonics4, 686–689 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2010.214

Lydersen, L., Wiechers, C., Wittmann, C., Elser, D., Skaar, J., Makarov, V.: Hack- ing commercial quantum cryptography systems by tailored bright illumination. Nature Photonics4, 686–689 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2010.214

work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2010.214 2010
[10]

Physical Review A75(3), 032314 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032314

Fung, C.-H.F., Qi, B., Tamaki, K., Lo, H.-K.: Phase-remapping attack in practical quantum-key-distribution systems. Physical Review A75(3), 032314 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032314

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.75.032314 2007
[11]

Physical Review Applied12, 064043 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.064043

Huang, A., Navarrete, A., Sun, S.-H., Chaiwongkhot, P., Curty, M., Makarov, V.: Laser seeding attack in quantum key distribution. Physical Review Applied12, 064043 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.064043

work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.12.064043 2019
[12]

Physical Review A78(4), 042333 (2008) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042333

Zhao, Y., Fung, C.-H.F., Qi, B., Chen, C., Lo, H.-K.: Quantum hacking: Experimental demonstration of time-shift attack against practical quantum-key- distribution systems. Physical Review A78(4), 042333 (2008) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042333

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.78.042333 2008
[13]

Nature Communications2, 349 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms1348

Gerhardt, I., Liu, Q., Lamas-Linares, A., Skaar, J., Kurtsiefer, C., Makarov, V.: Full-field implementation of a perfect eavesdropper on a quantum cryptog- raphy system. Nature Communications2, 349 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms1348

2011
[14]

Physical Review A84(6), 062308 (2011) https://doi

Li, H.-W., Wang, S., Huang, J.-Z., Chen, W., Yin, Z.-Q., Li, F.-Y., Zhou, Z., Liu, D., Zhang, Y., Guo, G.-C., Bao, W.-S., Han, Z.-F.: Attacking a practical quantum-key-distribution system with wavelength-dependent beam splitter and multiwavelength sources. Physical Review A84(6), 062308 (2011) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.062308

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.062308 2011
[15]

Physical Review A83(6), 062331 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.062331

Sun, S.-H., Jiang, M.-S., Liang, L.-M.: Passive faraday-mirror attack in a practi- cal two-way quantum-key-distribution system. Physical Review A83(6), 062331 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.062331

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.83.062331 2011
[16]

Physical Review Letters107, 110501 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.107.110501 18

Jain, N., Wittmann, C., Lydersen, L., Wiechers, C., Elser, D., Marquardt, C., Makarov, V., Leuchs, G.: Device calibration impacts security of quantum key dis- tribution. Physical Review Letters107, 110501 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.107.110501 18

2011
[17]

Physical Review Letters108, 130503 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.108.130503

Lo, H.-K., Curty, M., Qi, B.: Measurement-device-independent quantum key dis- tribution. Physical Review Letters108, 130503 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.108.130503

2012
[18]

Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Computing (CSC’17) (2017)

Russell, M.B., Mailloux, L.O., Hodson, D.D., Grimaila, M.R.: A bell state ana- lyzer model for measurement device independent quantum key distribution. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Computing (CSC’17) (2017). University/AFIT technical conference paper

2017
[19]

Foundations of Physics29(4), 631–643 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018820410908

Zeilinger, A.: A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics29(4), 631–643 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018820410908

work page doi:10.1023/a:1018820410908 1999
[20]

Nature Communications5, 3732 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4732

Curty, M., Xu, F., Cui, W., Lim, C.C.W., Tamaki, K., Lo, H.-K.: Finite-key analysis for measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution. Nature Communications5, 3732 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4732

work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4732 2014
[21]

Physical Review Letters85(2), 441–444 (2000) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441

Shor, P.W., Preskill, J.: Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distri- bution protocol. Physical Review Letters85(2), 441–444 (2000) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.441 2000
[22]

Nature590, 214–219 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03093-8 19

Chen, Y.-A., Pan, J.-W.,et al.: An integrated space-to-ground quantum com- munication network over 4,600 kilometres. Nature590, 214–219 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03093-8 19

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03093-8 2021

[1] [1]

In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, pp

Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G.: Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, pp. 175–179. IEEE Press, Bangalore, India (1984)

1984

[2] [2]

Physical Review Letters67(6), 661–663 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661

Ekert, A.K.: Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem. Physical Review Letters67(6), 661–663 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.67.661 1991

[3] [3]

Journal of the ACM 48(3), 351–406 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1145/382780.382781

Mayers, D.: Unconditional security in quantum cryptography. Journal of the ACM 48(3), 351–406 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1145/382780.382781

work page doi:10.1145/382780.382781 2001

[4] [4]

Science283(5410), 2050–2056 (1999) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.283.5410.2050

Lo, H.-K., Chau, H.F.: Unconditional security of quantum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances. Science283(5410), 2050–2056 (1999) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.283.5410.2050

work page doi:10.1126/science.283.5410.2050 2050

[5] [6]

Physical Review Letters85(6), 1330–1333 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1330 17

Brassard, G., L”utkenhaus, N., Mor, T., Sanders, B.C.: Limitations on practical quantum cryptography. Physical Review Letters85(6), 1330–1333 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1330 17

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.1330 2000

[6] [7]

Physical Review A73(2), 022320 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022320

Gisin, N., Fasel, S., Kraus, B., Zbinden, H., Ribordy, G.: Trojan-horse attacks on quantum-key-distribution systems. Physical Review A73(2), 022320 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022320

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.73.022320 2006

[7] [8]

Physical Review A74(2), 022313 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022313

Makarov, V., Anisimov, A., Skaar, J.: Effects of detector efficiency mismatch on security of quantum cryptosystems. Physical Review A74(2), 022313 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022313 . Erratum: Physical Review A 78, 019905 (2008)

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.74.022313 2006

[8] [9]

Nature Photonics4, 686–689 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2010.214

Lydersen, L., Wiechers, C., Wittmann, C., Elser, D., Skaar, J., Makarov, V.: Hack- ing commercial quantum cryptography systems by tailored bright illumination. Nature Photonics4, 686–689 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2010.214

work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2010.214 2010

[9] [10]

Physical Review A75(3), 032314 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032314

Fung, C.-H.F., Qi, B., Tamaki, K., Lo, H.-K.: Phase-remapping attack in practical quantum-key-distribution systems. Physical Review A75(3), 032314 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032314

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.75.032314 2007

[10] [11]

Physical Review Applied12, 064043 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.064043

Huang, A., Navarrete, A., Sun, S.-H., Chaiwongkhot, P., Curty, M., Makarov, V.: Laser seeding attack in quantum key distribution. Physical Review Applied12, 064043 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.064043

work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.12.064043 2019

[11] [12]

Physical Review A78(4), 042333 (2008) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042333

Zhao, Y., Fung, C.-H.F., Qi, B., Chen, C., Lo, H.-K.: Quantum hacking: Experimental demonstration of time-shift attack against practical quantum-key- distribution systems. Physical Review A78(4), 042333 (2008) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042333

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.78.042333 2008

[12] [13]

Nature Communications2, 349 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms1348

Gerhardt, I., Liu, Q., Lamas-Linares, A., Skaar, J., Kurtsiefer, C., Makarov, V.: Full-field implementation of a perfect eavesdropper on a quantum cryptog- raphy system. Nature Communications2, 349 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms1348

2011

[13] [14]

Physical Review A84(6), 062308 (2011) https://doi

Li, H.-W., Wang, S., Huang, J.-Z., Chen, W., Yin, Z.-Q., Li, F.-Y., Zhou, Z., Liu, D., Zhang, Y., Guo, G.-C., Bao, W.-S., Han, Z.-F.: Attacking a practical quantum-key-distribution system with wavelength-dependent beam splitter and multiwavelength sources. Physical Review A84(6), 062308 (2011) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.062308

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.062308 2011

[14] [15]

Physical Review A83(6), 062331 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.062331

Sun, S.-H., Jiang, M.-S., Liang, L.-M.: Passive faraday-mirror attack in a practi- cal two-way quantum-key-distribution system. Physical Review A83(6), 062331 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.062331

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.83.062331 2011

[15] [16]

Physical Review Letters107, 110501 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.107.110501 18

Jain, N., Wittmann, C., Lydersen, L., Wiechers, C., Elser, D., Marquardt, C., Makarov, V., Leuchs, G.: Device calibration impacts security of quantum key dis- tribution. Physical Review Letters107, 110501 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.107.110501 18

2011

[16] [17]

Physical Review Letters108, 130503 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.108.130503

Lo, H.-K., Curty, M., Qi, B.: Measurement-device-independent quantum key dis- tribution. Physical Review Letters108, 130503 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.108.130503

2012

[17] [18]

Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Computing (CSC’17) (2017)

Russell, M.B., Mailloux, L.O., Hodson, D.D., Grimaila, M.R.: A bell state ana- lyzer model for measurement device independent quantum key distribution. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Computing (CSC’17) (2017). University/AFIT technical conference paper

2017

[18] [19]

Foundations of Physics29(4), 631–643 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018820410908

Zeilinger, A.: A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics29(4), 631–643 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018820410908

work page doi:10.1023/a:1018820410908 1999

[19] [20]

Nature Communications5, 3732 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4732

Curty, M., Xu, F., Cui, W., Lim, C.C.W., Tamaki, K., Lo, H.-K.: Finite-key analysis for measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution. Nature Communications5, 3732 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4732

work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4732 2014

[20] [21]

Physical Review Letters85(2), 441–444 (2000) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441

Shor, P.W., Preskill, J.: Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distri- bution protocol. Physical Review Letters85(2), 441–444 (2000) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.441 2000

[21] [22]

Nature590, 214–219 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03093-8 19

Chen, Y.-A., Pan, J.-W.,et al.: An integrated space-to-ground quantum com- munication network over 4,600 kilometres. Nature590, 214–219 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03093-8 19

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03093-8 2021