On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 09:10:02AM -0800, Razer wrote:

I can't parse the technical stuff. Does the last paragraph mean
they broke "old quantum crypto"?

>From the abstract and the last paragraph of the article what I'm seeing
is they can detect a hack on the data (apparently even if it's simply a
regurgitation of the original) because the 'noise' created by the
tampering itself appears to leave a 'standard recognizable signature'.
But pardon if that's not the answer to the question you asked... as the
Sj: line implies this is way above my pay-grade.

On the cryptography mailing list there is summary for smart dummies:
http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2017-February/031425.html