Before you can transition to quantum-resistant algorithms, you first need to know exactly where your vulnerabilities live—a task that is becoming impossible to manage manually. This is where the Quantum Bill of Materials (QBOM) becomes the cornerstone of your strategy. Much like a traditional SBOM tracks software components, a QBOM provides a comprehensive, automated inventory of every cryptographic asset, protocol, and library across your entire infrastructure. It transforms "cryptographic shadow IT" into a clear, actionable roadmap, allowing security teams to identify exactly which keys and certificates are at risk before the first quantum threat ever materializes.
The quantum computing revolution isn't coming—it's already here, and it's fundamentally changing how we think about cryptographic security. While quantum computers may not be breaking encryption en masse today, the timeline for when they will be is shorter than many organizations realize. The good news? The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has given us a roadmap to quantum-resistant security, but it requires action on two critical fronts: key exchange protocols and certificate signing algorithms.
In this blog, we will dive deep into why these two pillars are the most urgent targets for an upgrade. We’ll explore the "harvest now, decrypt later" threat to key exchanges and the risk of total identity impersonation through vulnerable certificates. Finally, we will demonstrate how Uptycs Juno AI simplifies this daunting journey—moving you from a state of cryptographic uncertainty to a verifiable, post-quantum posture by first generating your QBOM and then guiding you through every step of the implementation.
The Quantum Threat Isn't Universal—It's Targeted
One of the biggest misconceptions about quantum computing is that it will magically break all encryption overnight. The reality is more nuanced and, in some ways, more urgent. Quantum computers excel at solving specific mathematical problems that underpin certain types of cryptography:
-
Shor's Algorithm can efficiently solve integer factorization and discrete logarithm problems, which means it can completely break RSA key exchange and Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH). When we say "break," we mean render completely useless—a quantum computer can recover private keys in polynomial time.
-
Grover's Algorithm provides a quadratic speedup for brute force attacks, which means it weakens symmetric encryption like AES but doesn't destroy it. AES-256 security drops from 256 bits to approximately 128 bits of quantum security—still computationally infeasible to break with realistic resources.
This distinction is crucial because it tells us where to focus our immediate attention.
Why Key Exchange Gets Priority Treatment
The asymmetric nature of the quantum threat explains why key exchange replacement is so urgent:
Key Exchange: Complete Compromise
- RSA-2048: Goes from ~112 bits of security to 0 bits
- P-256 ECDH: Goes from ~128 bits of security to 0 bits
- Timeline: Achievable with "reasonable" quantum computers in the near term
Symmetric Ciphers: Manageable Degradation
- AES-128: Goes from 128 bits to ~64 bits of quantum security
- AES-256: Goes from 256 bits to ~128 bits of quantum security
- Timeline: Would require massive quantum computers that may never be practical
When your key exchange is broken, everything else falls like dominoes. An attacker who can break ECDH can recover session keys instantly and decrypt all session traffic. When AES is weakened but still requires 2^128 operations to break, it remains computationally infeasible for the foreseeable future.
NIST's Post-Quantum Standards: The Foundation of Future Security
On August 13, 2024, NIST finalized three Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for post-quantum cryptography, giving organizations concrete standards to implement:
ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key Encapsulation Mechanism)
- FIPS 203
- Based on CRYSTALS-Kyber
- Primary standard for general encryption and key exchange
- Replaces vulnerable RSA and ECDH key exchange
ML-DSA (Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm)
- FIPS 204
- Based on CRYSTALS-Dilithium
- Used for digital signatures
- Replaces RSA and ECDSA signatures
SLH-DSA (Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm)
- FIPS 205
- Based on SPHINCS+
- Backup option for digital signatures
- Provides alternative signature mechanism
Understanding NIST Security Levels
NIST's security levels provide a clear framework for understanding the strength of post-quantum algorithms by comparing them to the computational effort required to break well-known symmetric encryption:
Level 1 Security
- Equivalent to breaking AES-128
- Requires approximately 2^128 operations
- Suitable for general applications
- Examples: ML-DSA-44, Falcon-512
Level 3 Security
- Equivalent to breaking AES-192
- Requires approximately 2^192 operations
- Higher security for sensitive applications
- Examples: ML-DSA-65
Level 5 Security
- Equivalent to breaking AES-256
- Requires approximately 2^256 operations
- Highest security for government/military applications
- Examples: ML-DSA-87, Falcon-1024
This leveling system helps organizations choose appropriate algorithms based on their security requirements and risk tolerance.
You Need Both: Key Exchange AND Certificate Signing
Here's a critical point that many organizations miss: post-quantum security requires upgrading both components of your cryptographic infrastructure.
-
Key Exchange Protection ensures that session keys can't be derived by quantum computers attacking the key agreement process. Even if you upgrade to ML-KEM for key exchange, you're still vulnerable if your certificates are signed with classical algorithms that quantum computers can break.
-
Certificate Signing Protection ensures that certificate authenticity can be verified even against quantum attacks. A quantum computer that can forge certificate signatures can impersonate any server, regardless of how secure the key exchange mechanism is.
Both components must be quantum-resistant to achieve true post-quantum security. It's not an either-or decision—it's a requirement for comprehensive protection.
Auditing Your Quantum Readiness
Understanding your current quantum security posture is essential for planning your migration. Uptycs provides this visibility by analyzing real-time telemetry across your environments and reporting NIST post-quantum security levels for both key exchange mechanisms and certificate signing algorithms.
Why this works:
- It is explicitly about your infrastructure
- It explains why Uptycs can do this (real-time telemetry across environments)
- It naturally sets up the detailed reporting that follows, without over-selling
Key Exchange Reporting:
- "Classical" - No post-quantum key exchange groups supported
- "PQ-L1", "PQ-L3", "PQ-L5" - Highest supported NIST security level
Certificate Signing Reporting:
- "Classical" - Certificate signed with non-post-quantum algorithm
- "PQ-L1", "PQ-L3", "PQ-L5" - NIST security level of signing algorithm
This visibility allows organizations to identify which servers and services are quantum-ready and which require immediate attention. A server might support post-quantum key exchange but still use classically-signed certificates, leaving a critical vulnerability.
The Path Forward
The transition to post-quantum cryptography isn't optional—it's inevitable. Organizations that start planning and implementing now will be ready when quantum computers pose a practical threat. Those that wait may find themselves scrambling to upgrade critical infrastructure under pressure.
The NIST standards provide a clear path forward, but implementation requires careful planning:
- Audit your current cryptographic infrastructure to understand what needs upgrading, using Uptycs to inventory post-quantum readiness across workloads
- Prioritize key exchange upgrades as they face the most immediate quantum threat
- Ensure certificate signing algorithms are also post-quantum resistant, with visibility into certificate inventories and signing algorithms
- Choose appropriate NIST security levels based on your risk requirements
- Test compatibility and performance impacts in staging environments
The quantum future is coming whether we're ready or not. The question isn't whether you'll need post-quantum cryptography—it's whether you'll implement it before or after quantum computers make that decision for you.
How Uptycs Juno AI helps in getting ready for the quantum future
The Uptycs platform serves as a central nervous system for your security telemetry, spanning cloud environments, Kubernetes clusters, containers, and traditional host or laptop infrastructure. By maintaining total awareness of every communication channel across these assets, Uptycs identifies the specific ciphers and encryption protocols currently in play. This deep visibility allows the platform to automatically compile a Quantum Bill of Materials (QBOM), providing a comprehensive inventory of your organization's cryptographic DNA.
To translate this technical data into strategic foresight, the Uptycs Juno AI agent applies advanced LLM reasoning to the gathered QBOM. Juno doesn't just list your encryption methods; it analyzes the interplay between your infrastructure's current state and the evolving requirements of post-quantum security. This synthesis allows the AI to interpret complex telemetry and provide a clear, reasoned assessment of where your vulnerabilities lie in a post-quantum world.
The following report represents the culmination of this process, offering a detailed look at your enterprise’s post-quantum readiness. By combining real-time infrastructure telemetry with AI-driven analysis, it provides a roadmap for transitioning your cryptographic standards to meet future threats. This assessment ensures you are not just aware of your quantum risk, but equipped with the intelligence necessary to mitigate it before the landscape shifts.
