Comparative Analysis of Quantum Key

Distribution Protocols: Security, Efficiency,

and Practicality

Neha Agarwal(B) and Vikas Verma

Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur 302012, India

[email protected]

Abstract. Conventional cryptography commonly relies on the complexity of

mathematical algorithms and the impractical amount of time required to crack
the method, which ensures the strength of security in key distribution. However, if
the process for distributing secret keys is inaccurate, it will be unsuccessful. As a
recent solution to the key distribution problem, Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)
has recently attracted a lot of research interest. QKD is a method for securely
distributing encryption keys using the properties of quantum mechanics. There
are several different protocols for QKD, each with its own advantages and lim-
itations. In this comparative analysis, the most commonly used QKD protocols,
including BB84, B92, E91, and SARG04 are examined and compared. Also, their
proposed work, generation rates, and experimental feasibility are analyzed. The
future directions and challenges for each of these protocols are discussed in this
paper. The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
various QKD protocols and their strengths and weaknesses.

Keywords: Cryptography · Encryption · Quantum Cryptography · Quantum

Key Distribution · Secret Key

1 Introduction
Data communication security is a complicated process that involves individuals, net-
works, and applications, all of which are interconnected by a variety of latest technolo-
gies. Information systems are therefore extremely susceptible to attacks and unauthorized
intrusions, whether the data is accidental or malicious. To secure information transmis-
sion over such networks, cryptography is a technique. Cryptography and security are
essential components of our daily network communications. In cryptography [1] data
are encrypted and decrypted using mathematical tools. It allows users to store sensitive
information or send it through unsecured networks (like the Internet) so that only the
intended recipient can understand it. Classical data encryption cannot provide complete
security for legal parties due to the weaknesses of existing networking techniques. Most
of the traditional cryptographic algorithms [2] depend upon mathematical models and
computational assumptions in the network communication environments. Due to this
reason, they are actually not safe and easily accessible by many attackers.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

R. K. Challa et al. (Eds.): ICAIoT 2023, CCIS 1929, pp. 151–163, 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48774-3_10
152 N. Agarwal and V. Verma

Quantum Cryptography (QC) has attracted the attention of information security

experts in recent years. In order to secure and transmit data in a way that cannot be
intercepted, QC [3] employs the inherent features of quantum physics. In contrast to
conventional cryptographic systems, QC uses physics rather than mathematics as the
primary component of its security concept. Modern cryptography relies heavily on key
distribution methods because they enable the use of more effective cryptography algo-
rithms. QC makes use of key distribution methods known as Quantum Key Distribution
(QKD). QKD is a secure form of communication for sharing encryption keys that are
only known to share parties. It exchanges cryptographic keys in a verifiable manner that
ensures security using principles from quantum physics.
The conventional key distribution uses mathematics to protect the data, but QKD
uses a quantum system that relies on fundamental natural laws to do so. The capacity
to detect the presence of eavesdroppers is a novel capability that QKD [4] has which
conventional cryptography techniques don’t possess. It is possible to identify every
eavesdropper activity as an error. The security offered by the QKD system has been
demonstrated to be resistant to adversary attacks, even with infinite computing power.
Attackers are prevented from simply copying the data in the same way that they can
today by the no-cloning theorem, which states that it is impossible to make identical
copies of an unknown quantum state. Furthermore, the system undergoes alterations
that enable the intended individuals to detect any interference or unauthorized access by
an attacker. This procedure is resistant to increased processor power.
In order for QKD [5] to function, numerous light particles, or photons, must be sent
between parties over fibre optic cables. The photons sent constitute a stream of ones and
zeros, and each photon has a random quantum state. Qubits, which consist of a continuous
stream of ones and zeros, are the binary system’s counterpart of bits. A photon passes
via a beam splitter at the receiving device, which compels it to take whichever path it
chooses at random into a photon collector. The receiver then sends information on the
order of the photons in response to the original sender, and the sender compares that
information with the emitter, which would have delivered each photon, separately. The
remaining bits of a particular series of bits after photons in the incorrect beam collector
are eliminated. The key to encrypting data can then be created using this bit sequence.
During an error-correction phase and other post-processing procedures, any mistakes and
data leakage are eliminated. Another post-processing phase known as delayed privacy
amplification eliminates any knowledge an eavesdropper might have acquired about the
ultimate secret key. Figure 1 shows the outline of the generation of the secret key from the
plaintext. In QKD protocols, a secret key is generated through a process that begins with
the sender converting classical bits into quantum bits. These qubits are then transmitted
through a quantum channel to the receiver. During transmission, the sender and receiver
perform operations on the qubits to ensure the security of the key. Once the transmission
is complete, the sender and receiver use a classical system to confirm the validity of the
key and correct any errors that may have occurred during transmission [5]. Overall, the
process involves a combination of quantum and classical systems to create a secure and
reliable secret key.
 Comparative Analysis of Quantum Key Distribution Protocols 153

Fig. 1. Generation of the secret key in quantum key distribution protocols

2 Comparative Analysis
In a modern communication environment, QKD is an emerging solution for safeguarding
sensitive data during transmission. In order to develop a secure connection for files
dependent on different simulator conditions, numerous scientists have concentrated on
the simulation of QKD. There are various categories for categorizing cryptographic
algorithms, and these categories will be based on the number of keys used for encryption
and decryption, as well as their application and use (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Working of QKD

Hamouda et al. [2] conducted a comparative study of various cryptographic algo-

rithms. Their contribution is in providing an overview and comparison of different crypto-
graphic algorithms and evaluating them based on factors such as security, performance,
efficiency, and ease of implementation. The study helps in selecting the appropriate
algorithm for specific applications based on their requirements.
Abushgra et al. [5] emphasize the importance of security in QKD protocols and
discusses different types of attacks that can compromise their security. Additionally,
the paper covers different techniques for improving the performance of QKD protocols.
Overall, the review provides a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art research
in QKD protocols and is useful for researchers in the field of quantum cryptography.
Wang et al. [6] proposed a new Coherent One-Way Quantum Key Distribution (COW-
QKD) protocol based on non-orthogonal states. Their contribution is in proposing a
new protocol that can increase the secret key rate and distance for QKD. The authors
conducted a theoretical analysis of the protocol and demonstrated its feasibility through
154 N. Agarwal and V. Verma

simulation experiments. They also compared the proposed protocol with other existing
protocols and showed that it outperforms them in terms of key rate and transmission
distance.
Guan et al. [7] proposed a new Twin-Field Quantum Key Distribution (TF-QKD)
protocol with improved security and key rate. Their contribution is in proposing a new
protocol that can increase the key rate and security of the existing TF-QKD protocols. The
authors conducted a theoretical analysis of the protocol and demonstrated its feasibility
through simulation experiments. They also compared the proposed protocol with other
existing protocols and showed that it outperforms them in terms of key rate and security.
Specifically, the authors introduced a new procedure of error estimation and correction
to reduce the errors caused by the fluctuation of the phase modulator. Additionally, the
authors used a modified reconciliation algorithm to enhance the security of the protocol.
Bhattacharya et al. [8] provided a detailed theoretical analysis of their proposed
approach and show that it has several advantages over existing Measurement Device
Independent Quantum Key Distribution (MDI-QKD) protocols, such as higher key rates
and improved security against certain types of attacks. They also provide a numerical
simulation of their proposed protocol to demonstrate its practicality and feasibility.
Jouguet et al. [9] demonstrated the experimental implementation of continuous vari-
able QKD over long distances, which was achieved using a high-performance system for
error correction and privacy amplification. The authors contributed to the development
of QKD by addressing practical challenges in long-distance communication.
Sajeed et al. [10] proposed a new protocol for QKD called TF-QKD. The authors
introduced a new approach to generate secret keys using correlated fields, which pro-
vides enhanced security compared to existing protocols. Their work contributed to the
advancement of QKD by improving the efficiency and security of the protocol.
Tang et al. [11] introduced the concept of MDI-QKD, which allows for secure com-
munication without relying on the security of the measurement devices. The authors
demonstrated the experimental implementation of this protocol, which represents a
significant step forward in the development of quantum key distribution.
Sit et al. [12] proposed an MDI-QKD protocol that uses high-dimensional states,
which provides increased security compared to previous protocols. The authors demon-
strated the feasibility of this protocol experimentally, contributing to the development
of secure quantum communication protocols.
Huang and Wang [13] proposed a continuous-variable MDI-QKD protocol that
improves the security of existing protocols. The authors demonstrated the feasibil-
ity of their protocol experimentally, which represents a significant contribution to the
development of secure quantum communication protocols.
Sharma and Kumar [14] reviewed quantum computing and its various applications,
such as quantum public key cryptography, quantum key distribution, and quantum
authentication. This paper also demonstrated that QC is not only secure but also has
claimed to demonstrate the intention of traditional cryptography. The sender and receiver
can recognize eavesdropping and take necessary action due to the qualities it has obtained
from quantum physics. The second goal is that nobody can crack the quantum key.
Gheorghies et al. [15] examined three distinct types of protocols: classical, QKD, and
blockchain based protocols, with examples from each category. Also discussed were the
 Comparative Analysis of Quantum Key Distribution Protocols 155

specifics and difficulties of each protocol, as well as potential solutions and the effects
of these protocols. This paper also proposed an outline of PKI solutions in the context
of quantum computing and blockchain.
Kour et al. [16] attempted to introduce QC, QKD protocols, and QC applications
in this study. It provided information on several QKD mechanisms. In order to attain
a higher level of security, these protocols can be used in conjunction with encryption
technology.
Al-Shabi [17] conducted a comparative analysis of the most significant algorithms in
terms of speed (implementation) and security (special keys). This paper covers a number
of significant algorithms used for the encryption and decryption of data across all fields.
The comparison of symmetric and asymmetric algorithms demonstrates that the former
is quicker than the latter. Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is the most dependable
algorithm in terms of speed encryption, decoding, the length of the key, structure, and
usability, according to past studies and comparison results.
Panhwar et al. [18] presented the features of different symmetric and asymmetric
algorithms, including triple Data Encryption Standard (DES), AES, and DES, which are
addressed in this study [18] in relation to their application in mobile computing based
work solutions.
Bharathi et al. [19] compare and contrast the various block cipher algorithms like
DES, RC6, BLOWFISH, and UR5 while also conducting a literature review on each
method. Blowfish and UR5 have 8 rounds, and RC6 has 12 rounds. In the study,
performance metrics for the encryption process are analyzed in light of security concerns.
QKD is different from symmetric encryption, asymmetric encryption, and hash
encryption in several ways. Table 1 shows the comparison of QKD over different encryp-
tions in terms of security, key distribution, quantum resistance and use cases. There are
Several different algorithms [15] that have been proposed for use in QKD systems. Ben-
nett and Brassard proposed the initial QKD protocol in 1984, and the first successful
QKD deployment took place in 1989. Table 2 shows the comparison of different QKD
protocols [20] based on their authors, year, proposed work, advantages and disadvan-
tages. QKD is considered to be more advanced and secure than conventional encryption
techniques for several reasons:
• Security: QKD is based on the principles of quantum mechanics and is considered
to be one of the most secure forms of encryption. It is resistant to eavesdropping,
which is a major concern in conventional encryption techniques because any attempt
to eavesdrop on the key distribution process will be detected.
• Quantum-resistance: QKD is considered to be quantum-resistant, meaning that it
is secure against attacks by quantum computers, whereas conventional encryption
methods such as symmetric and asymmetric encryption, will be broken by the power
of Quantum computers.
• Key Distribution: In QKD, the key distribution process is secure and does not rely
on a secure initial channel, which is required in conventional encryption techniques.
This makes it more suitable for use in environments where a secure initial channel is
not available.
156 N. Agarwal and V. Verma

• No need for trust: In QKD the parties do not need to trust the communication channel
or the devices used in the key distribution process, as the security is based on the laws
of physics, which can be trusted.
• Versatility: QKD can be used in combination with other encryption methods to
enhance the security of the overall system. For example, a one-time pad encryp-
tion key generated by QKD can be used in a symmetric-key encryption algorithm
such as AES.

Table 1. Comparison of using QKD over Symmetric Encryption, Asymmetric Encryption and
Hash Encryption

Parameter Symmetric Asymmetric Hash QuantumKey

Encryption Encryption Encryption Distribution
(QKD)
Security Can be broken if Can be broken if a Not meant for Considered to be
the secret key is private key is encryption but one
compromised compromised for integrity of the most secure
check forms of
encryption
Key The secret key Public key Not applicable Allows for secure
Discontribution must be shared can be shared key
securely openly, the private distribution
key must be kept without the need
secret for a secure initial
channel
Quantum- Not quantum- Not quantum- Not applicable Quantum-resistant
resistance resistant resistant
Use-cases Data encryption, The digital Data integrity, Secure
VPN, and Disk signature, Secure the communicate. Key
encryption communication Authenticity distribution
check

In summary, QKD offers a higher level of security and key distribution flexibility
than conventional encryption methods, it’s resistant to quantum computer attacks and
does not rely on communication channels. It can also be used in combination with other
encryption methods for added security (Tables 3 and 4).
 Comparative Analysis of Quantum Key Distribution Protocols 157

Table 2. Comparison of different QKD Protocols (Part 1)

Author/s Protocol Proposed Approach Key Advantages Disadvantages

Work Contributions
Hwang SSP Uses six non- Uses decoy The protocol is More Moderate
et al. orthogonal states and a Secure even secure than Complexity
[21] state to encode single-photon under high-loss BB84
(2003) the key source conditions
Scarani, SARG04 A simplified Uses weak The protocol is Simple to Less secure
et al. version of laser pulses secure against implement than
[22] BB84, and it and a photon number BB84
(2004) uses only one decoy-state splitting attacks
non-orthogonal technique
state to encode
the key
Samuel Gaussian- Uses Uses the The approach More More complex
L. et al. modulated Gaussian properties of allows for the efficient to implement
[23] Coherent modulation to continuous implementation than BB84
(2005) State QKD encode the key variable of a wide range of
systems, such quantum
as quadrature information
amplitude protocols
and phase
Raúl Twin-Field Uses the Uses The proof More More complex
García- QKD correlation mathematical provides a robust to implement
Patrón between two proofs and theoretical basis against
et al. quantum fields analysis for the security of certain
[24] to encode the continuous types of
(2006) key variable QKD attacks
Inoue, DPS Uses a Uses The protocol is More Moderate
Kyo decoy-state to differential secure against secure Complexity
et al. detect the quadrature general attacks than BB84
[25] presence of phase shift
(2009) eavesdroppers and decoy
states
Sajeed TWIN- Uses two Sagnac High-dimensional Resistant to Requires
et al. QKD conjugate interferometer key distribution noise and complex
[10] quadratures of with loss hardware and
(2015) light field and entangled enabling may be
phase twin beams higher key vulnerable to
modulation to rates attacks against
encode the key over longer the detector
distances
158 N. Agarwal and V. Verma

Table 3. Comparison of different QKD Protocols (Part 2)

Author/s Protocol Proposed Approach Key Advantages Disadvantages

Work Contributions
Tang MDI- Combines Phase-encoded Overcome the Resistant Requires more
et al. [11] QKD MDI- coherent states vulnerabilities to attacks complex
(2016) QKD with and homodyne of the against the hardware and
MDI to detection measurement detection may have
achieve higher apparatus and devices lower key
security detectors rates
Sit et al. High- Uses high- Spatial-mode Ability to Can achieve Requires more
[12] dimensional dimensional entanglement send more higher key rate complex
(2017) QKD quantum with information with a smaller hardware and
states (e.g., homodyne per photon number of may be
qubits) to detection photons vulnerable to
encode the attacks against
key the detector
Huang et CV-MDI- Combines Homodyne Robust High security Requires more
al. [13] QKD the security detection and against against complex hard-
(2018) of SARG04 postselection all detector all types ware and may
with the side channels of attacks, have lower
practicality including key
of MDI-QKD MDI rates
using CV attacks
states and
homodyne
measurements
Hamouda Various Comparative Review and Provides Evaluates the Evaluation
and crypto- study of analysis insights into algorithms criteria may
B.E.H.H graphic different of existing the strengths based on not be suitable
[2] algorithms cryptographic algorithms and factors like for all
(2020) algorithms weaknesses security, applications
of different performance,
cryptographic efficiency and
algorithms ease of
implementation
Jouguet Coherent Uses Homodyne Achieved the Can achieve Sensitive to
et al. [9] one-way homodyne detection the longest high key channel noise
(2013) QKD detection and and reverse distance for rates over And requires
phase reconciliation continuous- long distances error
randomization variable using standard correction and
to achieve quantum telecom privacy
high key rates key equipment amplication
distribution
 Comparative Analysis of Quantum Key Distribution Protocols 159

Table 4. Comparison of different QKD Protocols (Part 3)

Author/s Protocol Proposed Approach Key Advantages Disadvantages

Work Contributions
Wang et al. COW-QKD A new COW- Non-orthogonal Improved Higher secret Requires careful
[6] (2020) QKD protocol state encoding and security, key rate and alignment of
based on coherent higher key rate better security optical elements
non-orthogonal one-way compared to against
states communication other COW certain types
QKD of attacks
protocols compared
to existing
COW-QKD
protocols
Guan et al. TF-QKD A new TF-QKD Introduces Improved key Better Requires
[7] (2020) protocol with additional rate and security precise
improved twin-field mode, security against timing
security and improved phase compared to certain types synchronization
key rate estimation and existing of attacks and between the
random basis twin-field improved key sender and
switching QKD rates receiver
protocols compared to
existing
TF-QKD
protocols
Marian Cryptography Comparative Literature Evaluation and Helps in Limited only to
Lazro key study of review and comparison of selecting an key distribution
Gheorghies distribution different analysis different appropriate protocols
and Emil protocols cryptographic cryptographic protocol for considered in
Simion [15] key distribution key specific the study
(2021) protocols distribution applications
algorithms based on the
requirements
Bhattachar MDI-QKD A new approach Encodes in- Improved Higher key Requires more
et al. [8] to MDI-QKD formation in security, rates and precise control
(2021) using structured structured higher better security over the
coherent states coherent toleranceto against encoding and
states utilize channel noise attacks decoding
unambiguous state and photon compared to operations
discrimination loss traditional
technique MDI-QKD
protocols
(continued)
160 N. Agarwal and V. Verma

Table 4. (continued)

Author/s Protocol Proposed Approach Key Advantages Disadvantages

Work Contributions
A.A Variations Literature Review of Analysis of Provides a Limited to
Abushgra of QKD review existing protocols different QKD comprehend- variations of
[5] (2022) protocols protocols sive overview QKD protocols
based on a based on ofvariations based on
conventional conventional of QKD conventional
system system protocols system
measurements measurements based on measurements
conventional
system
Hoi- MDI- MDI-QKD Usesentanglement The protocol is More robust More complex
Kwong Lo QKD eliminates the and a secure against against to implement
et al. [26] need for trust in loophole-free Bell attacks on the certain types
(2012) measurement test measurement of attacks
devices devices

3 Research Challenges and Issues

QKD is a promising technology that offers a high level of security and key distribution
flexibility, but it also has some limitations:
• Distance: The distance over which a QKD system can operate is limited by the
loss of the quantum signal as it travels through the optical fiber or free space. This
limits the range of QKD systems and makes them less practical for long-distance
communication.
• Cost: QKD systems can be expensive to build and maintain, especially when com-
pared to conventional encryption systems. This can make them less practical for
widespread use.
• Complexity: QKD systems can be complex to set up and operate, requiring specialized
equipment and trained personnel. This can make them less accessible to the average
user.
• Interception: QKD systems can be intercepted by an attacker who is able to access
the quantum channel. However, this can be detected by the legitimate parties.
• Scalability: The scalability of QKD systems is limited and the number of users that
can be supported is small in comparison to conventional encryption systems.
• Integration: QKD systems have to be integrated with conventional encryption systems
as they are not yet capable of providing end-to-end encryption.
• Noise: QKD is sensitive to noise and errors, which can decrease the secret key
generation rate and decrease the overall security of the system.
Despite these limitations, QKD is still considered to be a promising technology
and research is ongoing to improve its performance, reduce costs, and make it more
accessible.
QKD is a method of securely distributing cryptographic keys using the principles
of quantum mechanics. However, there are several challenges that must be overcome in
order to make QKD a practical and widely-used technology. One of the primary chal-
lenges is the installation of QKD systems into existing infrastructure. This includes the
 Comparative Analysis of Quantum Key Distribution Protocols 161

need for specialized hardware, software, and communication networks that can support
QKD.
Another challenge is the limited distance that photons can travel before they are
absorbed or scattered, which limits the maximum distance over which QKD can be
used. Finally, the initial application of QKD is also a challenge, as it requires a significant
amount of resources and expertise to implement. Despite these challenges, researchers
and industry professionals are working to overcome these limitations and make QKD
a viable and secure method of communication. Putting in place a QKD infrastructure
that works perfectly is challenging. Although it is theoretically completely secure, secu-
rity problems arise in real-world applications due to shortcomings in equipment like
single photon detectors. Security analysis should always be considered. Modern fibre
optic connections often have a maximum distance a photon can travel. Frequently, the
range exceeds 100 km. This spectrum for QKD implementation has been widened by
some groups and organizations. For instance, the University of Geneva and Corning Inc.
collaborated to build a device that, under perfect circumstances, can transport a photon
307 km. With the use of a patent-pending, out-of-band delivery mechanism dubbed Phio
Trusted Xchange, Quantum Xchange established Phio, a QKD network in the United
States that can transfer quantum keys over an ostensibly limitless distance.
Another difficulty with QKD is that it requires the establishment of a channel of
communication with traditional authentication. This indicates that a sufficient level of
security was already established because one of the involved users had already exchanged
a symmetric key. Without QKD, a system can already be designed to be adequately secure
by employing another high-level encryption standard. However, as the use of quantum
computers increases, the likelihood that an attacker may utilize quantum computing to
break present encryption techniques increases, making QKD increasingly significant.

4 Conclusion
This research paper has provided a thorough analysis of the different QKD protocols,
including their strengths and limitations. The reader can gain a comprehensive under-
standing of these protocols after reviewing this study. Four of the most commonly used
QKD protocols: BB84, BB92, E91, and SARG04 have been analyzed here. Each of
these protocols has its own strengths and limitations, while BB84 is the most widely
used and well-studied protocol. This work has examined their experimental feasibility,
and methodology and discussed the future directions and challenges for each of these
protocols. Despite their limitations, QKD is a promising technology that offers a high
level of security. Ongoing research aims to improve its performance, reduce costs, and
make it more accessible. With advancements in technology, QKD is expected to become
more widely adopted in the future. Companies are working on making QKD systems
more affordable and user-friendly, and scientists are developing new QKD protocols that
can operate over longer distances and support more users.
One important direction for future research is the integration of QKD with other
technologies such as the internet and cloud computing. As more and more data is stored
and transmitted over networks, the need for secure communication methods like QKD
becomes increasingly important. Another important area of research is the security proof
162 N. Agarwal and V. Verma

of QKD in realistic scenarios, where the assumption of idealized conditions is relaxed

and the security proof holds in the presence of practical noise, device imperfections, and
other side-channel attacks.

Acknowledgements. I would like to acknowledge the support from Vivekananda Global Univer-
sity, India. My special thanks are extended to all professors from Computer Science Department,
Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, India.

References
1. Javed, M., Aziz, K.: A survey of quantum key distribution protocols. In: 7th International Con-
ference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT 2009), Abbottabad, 16–18 December
2009. ACM (2009)
2. Hamouda, A., B.E.H.H.: Comparative study of different cryptographic algorithms. J. Inf.
Secur. 11, 138–148 (2020)
3. C.S. et al.: A study and analysis on symmetric cryptography. In: International Confer-
ence on Science, Engineering and Management Research (ICSEMR), pp. 978-1-4799-7613-
3/14/$31.00. IEEE (2014)
4. Gnatyuk, S.O.: Comparative analysis of quantum key distribution systems. Sci. Based
Technol. 78–82 (2013)
5. Abushgra, A.: Variations of QKD protocols based on conventional system measurements: a
literature review. Cryptography 6(1), 1–25 (2022)
6. Wang, C., Huang, Y., Zhang, L., Yu, Z., Guo, J., Liu, Y.: A new coherent one-way QKD
protocol based on non-orthogonal states. IEEE Access 8, 143485–143496 (2020)
7. Guan, J., Zhang, L., Liu, Y., Guo, J.: A new twin-field quantum key distribution protocol with
improved security and key rate. Quantum Inf. Process. 19(3), 1–17 (2020)
8. Bhattacharya, A., Dhar, A., Das, D.: A new approach to measurement device-independent
quantum key distribution using structured coherent states. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 57(3),
1–10 (2021)
9. Jouguet, P., Kunz-Jacques, S., Leverrier, A., Grangier, P., Diamanti, E.: Experimental demon-
stration of long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Nat. Photonics 7(6),
378–381 (2013)
10. Sajeed, S., Kumar, R., Prakash, G.: Twin-field quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. 92(5),
052315 (2015)
11. Tang, D., Qi, B., Lo, H.-K.: Experimental measurement device independent quantum key
distribution. Phys. Rev. X 6(1), 011024 (2016)
12. Sit, A., Fung, C.F., Lo, H.-K.: Measurement device independent quantum key distribution
with high-dimensional states. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 23(5), 1–10 (2017)
13. Huang, D., et al.: Continuous-variable measurement device-independent quantum key
distribution. Phys. Rev. 98(3), 032315 (2018)
14. Sharma, A. and Kumar, A.: A survey on quantum key distribution. In 2nd International
Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent Computing Techniques (ICICT), (2019)
15. Gheorghies, M.L., Simion, E.: A comparative study of cryptographic key distribution
protocols. IACR Crypt. ePrint Arch. 2021, 31 (2021)
16. Kour, J., Koul, S., Zahid, P.: A survey on quantum key distribution protocols. Int. J. Comput.
Sci. Appl. 7(3) (2017)
17. Al-Shabi, M.A.: A survey on symmetric and asymmetric cryptography algorithms in
information security. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 9(3) (2019)
 Comparative Analysis of Quantum Key Distribution Protocols 163

18. Panhwaret, A., Al Saca, Z.: A study of symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic algorithms.
IJCSNS Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 19(1), 1–8 (2019)
19. Bharathi, E., Marimuthu, A., Kavitha, A.: Performance analysis of symmetric encryption
techniques. Int. J. Comput. Netw. Secur. 5(1), 1–4 (2013)
20. Nurhadi, A., Syambas, N.: Quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols: a survey. In: 4th
International Conference on Wireless and Telematics (ICWT), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2018)
21. Hwang, W.-Y.: Quantum key distribution with high loss: toward global secure communication.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057901 (2003)
22. Scarani, V., Acin, A., Ribordy, G., Gisin, N.: Quantum cryptography protocols robust against
photon number splitting attacks for weak laser pulse implementations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
057901 (2004)
23. Braunstein, S.L., van Loock, P.: Quantum information with continuous variables. Rev. Mod.
Phys. 77(2), 513–577 (2005)
24. Garcia-Patron, R., Cerf, N.J.: Unconditional optimality of Gaussian attacks against
continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 190503 (2006)
25. Inoue, K., Iwai, Y.: Differential quadrature phase shift quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev.
A 79, 022319 (2009)
26. Lo, H.-K., Curty, M., Qi, B.: Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012)