Source: Cloud Security Alliance
Author: unknown
URL: https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2026/10/05/post-quantum-cryptography-is-not-an-algorithm-upgrade
ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY:
Successful PQC migration requires distinguishing NIST algorithms, mapping crypto dependencies to data and systems, prioritizing risk, proving production usage.
MAIN POINTS:
- Clarify ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA roles; they aren’t interchangeable with FIPS numbers.
- FIPS 203 ML-KEM provides key establishment, enabling symmetric encryption like AES.
- FIPS 204 ML-DSA replaces classical signature uses such as RSA signatures and ECDSA.
- FIPS 205 SLH-DSA adds hash-based signatures, improving cryptographic diversity beyond lattices.
- FIPS 202 defines SHA-3 hashing, not a PQC migration algorithm.
- Shor breaks RSA/DH/ECC; Grover only reduces symmetric margins, focusing urgency on public-key.
- Inventorying “RSA-2048” is insufficient; prioritize based on what data and services it protects.
- Harvest-now-decrypt-later makes long-lived confidentiality a present risk despite uncertain QC timelines.
- Signature risks differ from confidentiality, impacting PKI, secure boot, device identity, and roots of trust.
- Crypto agility requires discoverability, changeability, and verification of actual negotiated production cryptography.
TAKEAWAYS:
- Begin with data lifetimes and business impact, then select PQC mechanisms accordingly.
- Treat confidentiality migration and signature/PKI modernization as distinct timelines and engineering efforts.
- Build dependency context across apps, protocols, keys, suppliers, and hardware lifecycles.
- Prove operational reality: negotiated algorithms, presented certificates, enforced policies, and drift detection.
- Plan for hybrid transition and supplier constraints within procurement and product lifecycle management.