Reply to "Comment on 'Security proof for cryptographic protocols based only on the monogamy of Bell's inequality violations' "

TL;DR

This paper defends a previous security proof for cryptographic protocols, demonstrating its validity even when the eavesdropper's alphabet is not limited to binary, thus addressing concerns about the assumptions used.

Contribution

It clarifies that the original security proof remains valid without assuming a binary alphabet for the eavesdropper, strengthening the proof's generality.

Findings

Main result holds without binary alphabet assumption

Security proof is robust against broader eavesdropper models

Addresses and refutes critique on initial assumptions

Abstract

In this reply I address the comment by W-Y. Hwang and O. Gittsovich on my paper [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 82}, 032313 (2010)]. The authors of the comment point out that I use implicit assumption that the alphabet of the eavesdropper is binary. They claim that such assumption is unrealistic. Here I show that even without this assumption the main result of my paper still holds.