Semiquantum secure direct communication (SQSDC) lets a fully quantum user and a restricted 'classical' user exchange a secret message directly over a quantum channel without first establishing a shared key. The literature on SQSDC, including the improved EPR-pair protocol of Yang and Tsai (2019), defends its protocols only through informal, attack-by-attack arguments against named attacks such as intercept-and-resend and modification attacks. As of 2026, no formal quantitative (information-theoretic or composable) security proof exists for any SQSDC protocol under general active adversaries, in contrast to semi-quantum key distribution and fully quantum QSDC, where such proofs exist. The open problem is to (i) derive formal security bounds for SQSDC protocols in the semi-quantum adversary model, (ii) characterize detection probabilities and error thresholds under realistic noise and loss, and (iii) design decoy and masking countermeasures that minimize overhead while preserving confidentiality and integrity — one joint objective of replacing iteratively patched countermeasures with provable security for SQSDC.

Background

Quantum secure direct communication (QSDC) transmits a secret message directly over a quantum channel, without first distilling a shared secret key as in quantum key distribution (QKD). Semiquantum cryptography, introduced by Boyer, Kenigsberg and Mor (2007) for key distribution, asks how much quantum capability is actually necessary for such tasks: one user ('Alice') is fully quantum, while the 'classical' user ('Bob') may only measure qubits in the computational ZZ basis, prepare fresh ZZ-basis states, reflect qubits unchanged, and reorder (permute) them. Semiquantum secure direct communication (SQSDC) is the direct-communication analogue; the first protocol was the three-step scheme of Zou and Qiu (2014), and Zhang, Li, Xia, Feng and Peng (2017) proposed an EPR-pair (two-qubit Bell-state) protocol in which the classical user sends a secret message to the quantum user. The security history of these protocols is a sequence of discovered attacks and informal patches: Gu, Lin and Hwang (2018) broke the three-step protocol with a double C-NOT attack (applying two controlled-NOT operations to entangle Eve with the traveling qubits); Yang and Tsai (2019) showed that in the EPR-based protocol of Zhang et al. an eavesdropper can recover the sender's secret message by an intercept-and-resend attack (measuring traveling qubits and forwarding substitutes) and can even alter the message undetected by a modification attack. Yang and Tsai proposed an improved protocol that uses four-state decoy photons (test photons prepared from all four states of two conjugate bases), XOR masking of message bits, and reordering of the photon sequence, raising the qubit efficiency (ratio of transmitted secret bits to total transmitted qubits) from 10% to 17%. Crucially, this improvement — like every SQSDC protocol before and since — is defended only by informal reasoning about a list of specific attacks, not by a formal proof. A formal, quantitative security proof in the information-theoretic sense bounds what an adversary bounded only by the laws of physics can learn (or undetectably modify) as a function of the observed error rate; composable security additionally guarantees that the protocol remains secure when composed with other cryptographic uses. Such proofs exist for semi-quantum key distribution (Krawec 2015; Zhang, Qiu and Mateus 2018) and, in the fully quantum setting, for QSDC (Wu, Lin, Yin and Long 2019, via Wyner's wiretap channel theory, a model in which the eavesdropper only receives a physically degraded, noisier version of the signal sent to the honest receiver; and Hu, Yang, Wu, Chen, Zhang, Qin, Xiao and Jia 2020, whose security proof of two-way QSDC explicitly covers channel loss and noise), but the restricted operation set of the classical user and the two-way (travel-and-return) channel structure of SQSDC have kept the proof techniques from being carried over. Realistic channels add a further unanalyzed layer: detector inefficiency and photon loss can mask an adversary's intervention, so a rigorous treatment must state detection probabilities and tolerable error thresholds under explicit noise and loss models.

Problem Statement

Motivated by the attack-and-patch history of SQSDC — exemplified by the intercept-and-resend and modification attacks on the EPR-based protocol of Zhang et al. (2017) and by the informally defended improvement of Yang and Tsai (2019) and the SQSDC class it represents — the problem is to give semiquantum secure direct communication the same rigorous security footing that semi-quantum key distribution and fully quantum QSDC already have. Concretely: (1) derive formal, quantitative security proofs for SQSDC protocols in the semi-quantum adversary model — where the adversary is limited only by quantum physics while the honest classical user is restricted to ZZ-basis measurements and preparations, reflection, and permutation — bounding the adversary's accessible information about the secret message and her ability to modify it undetected as a function of the error rate observed in the protocol's eavesdropping checks (e.g., on the decoy photons), ideally with composable guarantees; (2) determine the detection probabilities and tolerable error thresholds of these protocols under realistic noise and loss models (detector inefficiency, channel loss, collective noise), where lost or noisy qubits can otherwise mask an adversary's intervention; and (3) design or optimize the decoy, masking, and reordering countermeasures (such as the four-state decoys, XOR masking, and reordering of the improved Yang-Tsai protocol) so as to minimize communication overhead while provably preserving both confidentiality and integrity of the message. These three components serve one joint objective — replacing the informal, attack-by-attack validation of SQSDC countermeasures with provable security — and all three are required for a resolution of the problem. Component (1) addresses SQSDC protocols as a class in the semi-quantum adversary model and must be instantiated for at least one concrete protocol, such as the improved EPR-pair protocol of Yang and Tsai; component (2) must state explicit detection probabilities and tolerable error thresholds under the noise and loss models named there; and component (3) must exhibit decoy, masking, and reordering countermeasures that are overhead-minimal among those provably preserving confidentiality and integrity. Establishing only one of the three components does not resolve the problem.

References

  1. Michel Boyer, Dan Kenigsberg, Tal Mor, 'Quantum Key Distribution with Classical Bob', Physical Review Letters 99, 140501 (2007), DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.140501, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.140501
  2. XiangFu Zou, DaoWen Qiu, 'Three-step semiquantum secure direct communication protocol', Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 57, 1696-1702 (2014), DOI 10.1007/s11433-014-5542-x, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-014-5542-x
  3. Ming-Hui Zhang, Hui-Fang Li, Zhao-Qiang Xia, Xiao-Yi Feng, Jin-Ye Peng, 'Semiquantum secure direct communication using EPR pairs', Quantum Information Processing 16, 117 (2017), DOI 10.1007/s11128-017-1573-3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-017-1573-3
  4. Jun Gu, Po-hua Lin, Tzonelih Hwang, 'Double C-NOT attack and counterattack on "Three-step semi-quantum secure direct communication protocol"', Quantum Information Processing 17, 182 (2018), DOI 10.1007/s11128-018-1953-3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-018-1953-3
  5. Walter O. Krawec, 'Security proof of a semi-quantum key distribution protocol', 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2015), DOI 10.1109/isit.2015.7282542, https://doi.org/10.1109/isit.2015.7282542
  6. Wei Zhang, Daowen Qiu, Paulo Mateus, 'Security of a single-state semi-quantum key distribution protocol', Quantum Information Processing 17, 135 (2018), DOI 10.1007/s11128-018-1904-z, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-018-1904-z
  7. Chun-Wei Yang, Chia-Wei Tsai, 'Intercept-and-resend attack and improvement of semiquantum secure direct communication using EPR pairs', Quantum Information Processing 18, 306 (2019), DOI 10.1007/s11128-019-2429-9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-019-2429-9
  8. Jiawei Wu, Zaisheng Lin, Liuguo Yin, Gui-Lu Long, 'Security of quantum secure direct communication based on Wyner's wiretap channel theory', Quantum Engineering 1, e26 (2019), DOI 10.1002/que2.26, https://doi.org/10.1002/que2.26
  9. Jian-Yong Hu, Liu Yang, Shu-Xiao Wu, Rui-Yun Chen, Guo-Feng Zhang, Cheng-Bing Qin, Lian-Tuan Xiao, Suo-Tang Jia, 'Security proof of the two-way quantum secure direct communication with channel loss and noise', EPL (Europhysics Letters) 129, 10004 (2020), DOI 10.1209/0295-5075/129/10004, https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/129/10004
  10. Hasan Iqbal, Walter O. Krawec, 'Semi-quantum cryptography', Quantum Information Processing 19, 97 (2020), DOI 10.1007/s11128-020-2595-9, arXiv:1910.05368, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-020-2595-9
  11. Chun-Wei Yang, Chia-Wei Tsai, 'Advanced semi-quantum secure direct communication protocol based on bell states against flip attack', Quantum Information Processing 19, 126 (2020), DOI 10.1007/s11128-020-02623-7, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-020-02623-7
  12. Zhenbang Rong, Daowen Qiu, Paulo Mateus, Xiangfu Zou, 'Mediated semi-quantum secure direct communication', Quantum Information Processing 20, 58 (2021), DOI 10.1007/s11128-020-02965-2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-020-02965-2
  13. You-Feng Yang, Long-Zhen Duan, Tao-Rong Qiu, Xu-Ming Xie, Wen-Ying Duan, 'Multi-party semi-quantum secure direct communication using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states', Quantum Information Processing 21, 324 (2022), DOI 10.1007/s11128-022-03671-x, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-022-03671-x
  14. Ping Wang, Xiaohong Chen, Zhiwei Sun, 'Semi-quantum secure direct communication against collective-dephasing noise', Quantum Information Processing 21, 352 (2022), DOI 10.1007/s11128-022-03702-7, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-022-03702-7
  15. Yuan Tian, Nanyijia Zhang, Jian Li, 'Two Novel Semi-Quantum Secure Direct Communication Protocols in IoT', Sensors 24, 7990 (2024), DOI 10.3390/s24247990, https://doi.org/10.3390/s24247990
  16. Yuan Tian, Nanyijia Zhang, Jinyong Chang, Jian Li, 'Three-party semi-quantum secure direct communication based on two communication models', Physica Scripta 99, 095110 (2024), DOI 10.1088/1402-4896/ad6947, https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ad6947
  17. Chia-Wei Tsai, Chun-Hsiang Wang, Chun-Wei Yang, Jason Lin, 'Security analysis and improvements of semi-quantum summation models without measurement', EPJ Quantum Technology 12, 110 (2025), DOI 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00416-4, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00416-4
  18. Xiao-Xue Zhang, Ri-Gui Zhou, Wen-Shan Xu, 'Robust semi-quantum secure direct communication based on multi-particle system', Quantum Information Processing 24, 169 (2025), DOI 10.1007/s11128-025-04779-6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-025-04779-6
  19. Xiaoxue Zhang, Rigui Zhou, Wenshan Xu, 'Measurement-Device-Independent Semi-quantum Secure Direct Communication', Chinese Journal of Electronics 35, 233-242 (2026), DOI 10.23919/cje.2024.00.322, https://doi.org/10.23919/cje.2024.00.322
  20. Chengyan Gao, Pengliang Guo, Jianwei Qiao, 'An Efficient Bidirectional Semiquantum Secure Direct Communication Protocol Using Bell States', Quantum Engineering 2026, e9053534 (2026), DOI 10.1155/que2/9053534, https://doi.org/10.1155/que2/9053534