2018.04.21 13:00:52 (987647350540730369) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (987013879338340353):
So you think that "absolute security" of an exchanged key means that it's safe against all attacks, but crossing out the word "absolute" means that it's referring only to attacks intercepting the photons in the particular key-exchange protocol you have in mind?
2018.04.12 05:55:20 (984278771799912448) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (983316827332841473):
Consider the statement that QKD exchanges "a cryptographic key between two remote parties with absolute security, guaranteed by the fundamental laws of physics". This statement communicates false information to the reader. Are you claiming that this depends on "broader context"?
2018.04.12 07:17:31 (984299450360324101) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":
As said previously, I consider this statement false, because of the claim of absolute security. The context makes things worse: this document is a marketing doc, aimed at people not knowing QKD, hence not knowing the usual security models.
2018.04.13 21:55:56 (984882899169284096) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (984299450360324101):
So you think that crossing out the word "absolute" would change the meaning of the claim that QKD exchanges "a cryptographic key between two remote parties with absolute security, guaranteed by the fundamental laws of physics", so it would no longer be clearly false advertising?
2018.04.19 19:03:41 (987013879338340353) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":
Exactly. The “laws of physics” indeed guarantee the security against attacks on the channel, under the standard assumption (which has to be clear to the reader) that no other leakage happens, that the apparatuses indeed work as advertised and modelled.