Cited by 3,047Quantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureWireless Communication Security Techniques

Simple Proof of Security of the BB84 Quantum Key Distribution Protocol

Open access
Shor, Peter W., Preskill, John·2000·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

We prove that the 1984 protocol of Bennett and Brassard (BB84) for quantum key distribution is secure. We first give a key distribution protocol based on entanglement purification, which can be proven secure using methods from Lo and Chau's proof of security for a similar protocol. We then show that the security of this protocol implies the security of BB84. The entanglement purification based protocol uses Calderbank-Shor-Steane codes, and properties of these codes are used to remove the use of quantum computation from the Lo-Chau protocol.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.85.441

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The technique used in the source-independent QRNG protocol shares strong similarity with the one used in QKD.

    “The technique used in the protocol shares strong similarity with the one used in QKD. 82”

    From Quantum random number generation (2016) · cites this paper as [82]

    The BB84 description (Protocol 3, p. 4) sets out a QKD technique involving random basis choices and check bits. The paper does not discuss the source-independent QRNG protocol or compare its technique with QKD, so it cannot establish the claimed strong similarity. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shor, P. W., & Preskill, J.
Affiliations
  • AT&T (United States) (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2000-07-10
Volume
85
Issue
2
Pages
441-444
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2071764857
Cited by
3,047
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 177 · 2025: 192 · 2024: 202 · 2023: 166 · 2022: 168 · 2021: 204 · 2020: 183 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 137 · 2017: 132 · 2016: 119 · 2015: 121 · 2014: 129 · 2013: 93 · 2012: 86
FWCI
45.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Wireless Communication Security Techniques
Keywords
BB84 protocol, quantum key distribution, security proofs, entanglement distillation, Calderbank-Shor-Steane codes, quantum error correction, quantum cryptography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review