Post Quantum Computing

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

#NIST launched its PQC standardization program in 2016, with the goal of developing cryptographic methods that can withstand quantum computing threats. The latest announcement introduces the first set of standardized algorithms: one for key agreement and two for digital signatures. These algorithms are designed to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and authentication of sensitive data, keeping digital communications secure against emerging quantum threats.

FIPS 203: Derived from Kyber, this standard is used in key agreement protocols such as TLS, replacing traditional methods like Diffie-Hellman. It offers fast performance despite the use of larger public keys and ciphertexts.

FIPS 204: Based on Dilithium, this standard is used for digital signatures. It provides faster verification than current methods like ECDSA and RSA, though it requires larger signatures (2.5KB) and public keys (1.3KB) and has roughly double the signing time.

FIPS 205: Built on the security of SHA-2 or SHA-3, this standard offers strong security with very small public keys (32 bytes) but generates larger signatures, around 7KB. It is particularly well-suited for applications like firmware updates, where rapid verification is crucial.

Today’s announcement takes place within a larger regulatory framework, including the White House’s National Security Memorandum, NSM-8, which requires the adoption of post-quantum cryptography (PQC). To transition to these new algorithms effectively, businesses must start by assessing their current cryptography usage. Whether conducted manually or through automated tools, this inventory process is critical. Proper tools and thorough testing are essential to facilitate a seamless shift from old algorithms to the new standards.

If Quantum computing was not a reality, why are there standards being implemented.

Be aware that what we see, or what they show us has already happened.

Posted in public and tagged , , , .

Leave a Reply