Short reads exploring specific aspects of post-quantum, autonomous AI, and on-chain security. New pieces roughly monthly per shift.
Announcements about quantum computers commonly focus on the number of physical qubits that they include. However, when evaluating claims for quantum migration, this is the wrong metric to look at.
Many organizations see Q-Day estimates and think that they have plenty of time to migrate. However, history shows that crypto migrations take longer than you'd expect.
Hash-based, stateful signature schemes like LMS and XMSS offer stronger quantum security guarantees than ML-DSA or SLH-DSA. However, this comes with some major assumptions.
Hybrid cryptography is likely best practice for a post-quantum migration. However, it does have its downsides.
QKD is commonly marketed as a replacement for post-quantum cryptography like ML-KEM. However, its limitations make the two solutions complementary, not alternatives.
The quantum migration regulations and deadlines that you see probably don't apply to you. That said, they're likely overestimating the time that you have to migrate to PQC.
Quantum migration is increasingly critical as quantum computing grows closer to breaking classical cryptography. However, directly swapping in post-quantum algorithms for their classical counterparts isn't the best idea.
Quantum migration plans often focus on Shor's threat to public key cryptography. However, symmetric encryption and hash algorithms face quantum threats as well.
Harvest now, decrypt later attacks are the main driver for organizations to start their quantum migrations today. However, not all data is at risk, and understanding the threat is essential to prioritizing migration efforts.
Quantum computing is described as a major threat to data encryption and confidentiality. However, the real threat in Web3 is quantum computing breaking ECDSA digital signatures.
A fast, practical guide to ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA, and which one to choose.