QUANTUM COMPUTING AND

CYBERSECURITY: EXPLORING
IMPLICATIONS, POTENTIAL THREATS, AND
FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Abstract: Instead of following traditional computing, quantum computing will grant faster solutions to some mathematical issues
that regular computers cannot solve. While the new technology can help improve pharmaceutical and materials science logistics,
it also exposes current cybersecurity structures to greater risk. There is concern that quantum algorithms such as Shor’s and
Grover’s will breach the standards that keep modern messages, payments, and data secure. This article highlights ways quantum
computing may affect cybersecurity, discusses risks in existing cryptography systems, and analyzes what is happening in post-
quantum cryptography. It also examines the political, moral, and defense-related issues caused by quantum threats and evaluates
the latest methods, such as running quantum keys and pairing them with ordinary ones. The study reveals that information
systems must be protected through diverse teams in the era of quantum computing by using current trends and projecting what
will happen in the future.
Keywords: Quantum Computing, Cybersecurity, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Cryptographic Vulnerabilities,
Quantum Key Distribution.

INTRODUCTION
How do we handle it when one computer can overcome the strong cryptography used by global banks, governments, and
private societies? This scenario might play out sooner than you imagine due to new technologies in quantum computing. Different
from classical computers that deal with bits (0 or 1). Due to this, quantum machines can perform specific jobs at rapid speeds,
such as factoring big numbers or searching massive and unsorted databases. Such advances in drug research, climate study, and
artificial intelligence have badly endangered the computer security foundation on which the Internet relies. Algorithms like Shor’s
algorithm, which are used in quantum computers, can easily crack the RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography that secure most
communications and information exchanges today. This article explores the relationship between quantum computing and
cybersecurity. It investigates the most important features of quantum technology, examines how this technology may impact
current encryption techniques, and reviews the world’s action against it. To explore how governments, experts, and business
developers are preparing for the rise of quantum computing, the discussion examines post-quantum cryptographic standards.

UNDERSTANDING QUANTUM COMPUTING

Information is processed differently in quantum computing than it is on classic computers because it relies on the laws of
quantum mechanics. Quantum computing relies on qubits, which can exist in both states simultaneously instead of just two
separate states. This feature allows quantum systems to deal with much more information than similar systems of classical
materials. It is called quantum entanglement when the states of particles change together uncannily, without them ever being
close. When entangling two or more qubits, complex operations can be executed quickly, allowing many problems to be handled
faster. Physics, engineering, and computer science have led to moving quantum computing from theories to actual experiments.

Top technology firms are leading the way in artificial intelligence. IBM has made superconducting qubit systems that can be
used on the cloud through the IBM Quantum Experience. In 2019, Google attracted attention by saying it achieved quantum
supremacy, showing “Sycamore,” a quantum processor, could complete a task in 200 seconds that would take a regular
supercomputer over 10,000 years. Leveraging trapped ions, Ion has produced quantum computers with improved accuracy and
durability, allowing more people to use and rely on quantum computing. The main difference between the two computing types is
how tasks are carried out in parallel. Unlike quantum computers, classical computers process bits of information one after the
other or in a few parallel strands, thanks to superposition. As a result, calculating specific numbers (integer factorization) and
querying databases can be done much faster. However, achieving a quantum advantage depends on the problem being solved and
might not be applicable everywhere.
 Table 1: Key Differences Between Classical and Quantum Computing

Feature Classical Computing Quantum Computing

Basic Unit of Information Bit (0 or 1) Qubit (0, 1, or superposition of both)
Information Processing Sequential Parallel (via superposition)
Communication Mechanism Classical logic gates Quantum gates (unitary operations)
Entanglement Not applicable Enables non-local correlations
Computational Power Growth Linear Exponential (for specific problems)

Since quantum computing is different from conventional, classical processors, we can focus on examining how its use affects
cybersecurity and exploring significant opportunities and threats.

CURRENT CYBERSECURITY LANDSCAPE

Currently, cybersecurity relies on cryptographic services and technology to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and
authenticity of digital data. It supports communication, finances, and privacy around the world. At the same time, it faces some
difficulties and is increasingly challenged by improving cyber threats.

3.1. Modern Cryptographic Methods

Cryptographic algorithms play crucial roles in ensuring the security of online and offline information. Because of asymmetric
cryptography, public and private keys are needed to safeguard communication with other parties and provide digital signatures.
RSA uses factoring big composite integers to ensure the strength of this public-key cryptosystem. Companies and individuals use
ECC for the same security as other cryptography, as it lets them use smaller key sizes that cost less energy. Symmetric encryption
algorithms use just one key for both encryption and decryption. Governmental, business, and private sectors use the Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES) as their primary symmetric cipher. Thanks to the 128, 192, and 256 bits available in AES, different
levels of encryption can be used.

Table 2: Overview of Key Cryptographic Algorithms Used in Modern Cybersecurity

Algorith Type Key Size Security Basis Typical Use Cases

m
RSA Asymmetric 2048–4096 Integer factorization problem Secure email, digital signatures
bits
ECC Asymmetric 256–521 Elliptic curve discrete Mobile apps, secure
bits logarithm problem communications
AES Symmetric 128–256 Substitution-permutation File encryption, VPNs, HTTPS
bits network sessions

3.2. Security Infrastructure

Our data and messages are secure and can be trusted in communications systems, including cryptographic algorithms. To
achieve security in web communication, HTTPS utilizes TLS for encryption and to ensure that the server is genuine. RSA and
ECC are important algorithms for ensuring the messages or software you receive are correct and unchanged. Data flowing
through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) is safe from interception since it passes within an encrypted tunnel. While blockchain
was created for decentralized cryptocurrencies, it can be applied to cybersecurity in many ways. A distributed ledger makes
Service reliability possible, ensuring data is unchangeable and can be confirmed.
 Figure 1: Cybersecurity Architecture

3.3. Vulnerabilities and Attack Vectors

Even with significant improvements in cryptography, today’s systems remain at risk of being attacked. These issues also
happen because of faulty programming, mistakes while configuring systems, and when people are tricked by social engineering.
If certificate validation fails to work correctly, a MITM attack could impact the exchange of security keys. By leaking electric or
electromagnetic signals, side-channel attacks acquire the keys that a cryptographic device must protect. Moreover, phishing and
credential stuffing attacks often work since they target people and rely on old passwords, making it easy to get past strong
encryption.
“Defense in depth” describes layered security used to address these threats. Examples are point protection, attack detection,
limiting who can access, and routine monitoring. Applying software updates and enabling MFA play a significant role in reducing
risk. Nevertheless, since global cyberattacks are becoming more advanced and frequent, cybersecurity should continue to evolve.
Here, we introduce the basics of today’s cybersecurity and the obstacles it faces, so that we can understand how quantum
technologies may soon impact them.

HOW QUANTUM COMPUTING THREATENS CYBERSECURITY

The security of traditional computer encryption depends on ideas that quantum computing can easily defeat. Because the
computer is programmed differently, it processes mathematical algorithms that cannot be done easily on ordinary machines,
making solving protected mathematical problems possible. Here, we look at how Shor’s and Grover’s quantum algorithms
threaten online encryption and how hackers can process stolen data later to crack it.

4.1. Shor’s Algorithm and the Collapse of Public-Key Cryptography

The discovery of Shor’s algorithm by Peter Shor in 1994 marks one of the biggest dangers to cybersecurity. Factoring large
integers and computing discrete logarithms quickly make RSA, DH, and ECC insecure schemes. Cryptographic protocols are
secure when solving problems such as integer factorization and the discrete logarithm on an elliptic curve, which is challenging.
Still, such issues can be rapidly solved using Shor’s algorithm on a quantum computer.
RSA encryption keeps most internet connections secure by relying on the presumption that factoring a 2048-bit number takes
a long time, even with the fastest algorithms. However, with a quantum computer and just a few thousand error-corrected qubits,
numbers used for confidentiality and authentication could be factored a fraction of the time, making RSA ineffective.

Table 3: Vulnerability of Classical Public-Key Cryptosystems to Shor’s Algorithm

Algorith Relies On Threat from Shor’s Algorithm Current Usage

m
RSA Integer Factorization Broken (private key can be TLS/SSL, VPNs, Email
derived) encryption
DH Discrete Logarithm Problem Broken Key exchange protocols
ECC Elliptic Curve Discrete Broken Mobile communications, IoT
Logarithm
4.2. Grover’s Algorithm and the Weakening of Symmetric Cryptography

Grover’s algorithm does not destroy symmetric-key cryptography as Shor’s algorithm does, but it dramatically reduces its
strength. Because of Grover’s algorithm, searching for a key in a brute-force manner becomes twice as efficient, meaning
symmetric algorithms could be cracked with only half the number of operations. Thus, while it would take a typical computer 2²⁵⁶
steps to successfully execute a brute-force attack against a 256-bit AES key, a quantum computer could do the same with just
about 2¹²⁸ steps.
QRAP managers can consider AES-128 and similar algorithms insecure in a post-quantum environment, though AES-256
takes too many resources to break and is still considered quantum-secure. Consequently, the lengths of symmetric keys should be
reviewed, and advanced or combined solutions might be needed.

Table 4. Impact of Grover’s Algorithm on the Security Levels of Common Symmetric Algorithms.

Symmetric Algorithm Classical Security Quantum Security Level Quantum-Safe?

Level (Grover)
AES-128 128-bit ~64-bit No
AES-256 256-bit ~128-bit Yes (tentatively)
SHA-256 (hashing) 256-bit ~128-bit Yes (with caution)

4.3. The ‘Harvest Now, Decrypt Later’ Threat Model

More people know that the “harvest now, decrypt later” (HNDL) approach quickly becomes a dangerous risk in the quantum
age. They even store encrypted messages today, planning for quantum computers to unlock everything. This method could
seriously affect the confidentiality of valuable files such as intellectual property, classified documents, and personal health and
biometric data. Exposure to the HNDL threat is hazardous in fields where data collection goes on for many years (for example, in
government, healthcare, and the military). Although quantum computers have not yet arrived, any data currently protected using
insecure algorithms may become vulnerable when quantum tools are used. Because of this model, we are urged to adapt to
quantum-proof cryptography in advance, to avoid issues after quantum computers have become available.

POST-QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY (PQC)

Assuming quantum computing becomes available, it will likely break the cryptographic systems now used for cybersecurity.
PQC refers to algorithms designed to resist threats from ordinary and quantum attackers. While regular cryptography techniques
may fall to Shor’s algorithm and depend on number theory, PQC algorithms avoid such a danger and rely on other difficulties that
are not known to respond to quantum attacks. PQC technology is made to develop tools that will secure data and documents in
post-quantum times by ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and authentication.

5.1. Leading Algorithms in PQC

PQC consists of several algorithms, where every type relies on specific challenging mathematical problems. Many
cryptographic systems rely on lattice-based, multivariate polynomial, hash-based, and code-based principles. Researchers regard
lattice-based cryptography as promising because it depends on how tough the job is to solve the LWE or SVP issues in high-
dimensional lattices. Their classification is related to their security and has little impact on computer processing time. Multivariate
cryptography relies on making it difficult to solve equations over a finite field, since this problem is challenging and secure
against allies having access to quantum computers. By depending on cryptographic hashes, digital signatures via hash-based
cryptography can be made strong and straightforward, but the signatures use more data. Decrypting random linear codes is tough,
forming the foundation of code-based cryptography; the McEliece cryptosystem has successfully avoided being cracked for many
years.

5.2. NIST’s Standardization Efforts

After realizing the importance of preparing for a quantum attack, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
launched its Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization Project in 2016. The initiative aims to assess, select, and set standards
for quantum-safe cryptographic algorithms that many people use. NIST made a list of finalist candidates and alternates for
cryptography public after extensive review and analysis by the public and experts. NIST has chosen CRYSTALS-KYBER and
CRYSTALS-Dilithium as the main lattice-based alternatives for encryption/KEM and signing digital messages, respectively.
Other multivariate and code-based functions are also considered to ensure that the algorithm contains many different techniques,
which helps prevent risks from future cryptanalytic discoveries.

5.3. Challenges to Implementation

While PQC ideas seem strong on paper, some challenges stand in the way of using PQC in today’s society. Considering the
technical aspects, using these algorithms may be pricey for restricted devices and IoT systems because they require more
computing power. Connecting with old systems also causes many difficulties. For PQC to be part of a system, technical protocols,
hardware, and program libraries must be updated without affecting systems that still use older technologies. The transfer should
be done carefully to avoid any problems with crucial services. Additionally, the cryptography community is challenged to make
keys and signatures feasible because several PQC candidates require much larger values than classical cryptography, increasing
bandwidth and storage space requirements.

Table 5: Overview of Leading Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithms

Algorithm Example Underlying Hard Strengths Limitations

Family Algorithm(s) Problem
Lattice-based CRYSTALS- Learning With Errors Strong security proofs, Larger key sizes
KYBER, Dilithium (LWE), Shortest Vector efficient implementation, than classical RSA
Problem (SVP) and versatile
Multivariate Rainbow Solving systems of Fast signature Large public key
multivariate quadratic generation sizes
equations
Hash-based XMSS, LMS Security of Simple design, strong Large signature
cryptographic hash security sizes, stateful
functions schemes
Code-based McEliece Decoding random Proven long-term Huge public keys
linear error-correcting security
codes

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND GLOBAL PREPARATIONS

Since quantum computing is rapidly developing, we must implement an active cybersecurity strategy with research, updated
cryptography, technology for quantum communication, and well-designed security laws and rules. In many countries, public
bodies, colleges, and corporations are working harder to prepare for the dawn of quantum technology and earn rewards.

6.1. Research and Development (R&D):

Across the world, research on quantum computing and quantum-safe cybersecurity has received significant funding.
Governments like the United States, China, the European Union, and Japan are spending billions of dollars advancing their
quantum operations. Both universities and research centers encourage joint work by quantum physicists, cryptographers, and
computer scientists. As an illustration, the U.S. National Quantum Initiative Act set aside over $1.2 billion for quantum research
at federal agencies and universities. Likewise, organizations such as the Quantum Flagship in the EU support international
projects that handle all the steps in quantum technology.

Table 6: Major Quantum Computing Research and Development Funding Programs Worldwide.

Region Funding Program Estimated Budget Focus Area Key Participants

(USD)
United National Quantum $1.2 billion Quantum computing Universities, national
States Initiative Act & cryptography labs
European Quantum Flagship €1 billion Quantum technologies Multinational
Union (~$1.1B) consortia
China National Quantum Undisclosed Quantum hardware, Government agencies,
 Laboratory Project (high) cryptography universities
Japan Quantum Technology $200 million Quantum Academia, industry
R&D Program approx. communication

6.2. Hybrid Cryptographic Systems:

Seeing how quantum computers could soon harm classical encryption schemes, experts suggest implementing a variety of
approaches in cryptography. Hybrid systems use time-tested algorithms, along with those that are still being developed, to ensure
protection against hackers. They effectively address risk factors brought by unknown post-quantum flaws and continue to work
with current systems. Under this scheme, eavesdroppers must attack both encryptions to crack the system. According to
specialists and industry standards, businesses should start with hybrid encryption now, simplifying future adoption of quantum-
safe technologies.

6.3. Quantum Key Distribution (QKD):

Securing communication through QKD is possible using the no-cloning theorem and quantum entanglement as the main
principles. Unlike other ways to exchange keys, QKD ensures security by allowing the two parties to make and use cryptographic
keys in a way where any intruder trying to listen would inevitably be discovered. Both fiber-optic and satellite-based networks
built using QKD are already up and running in China, Europe, and Japan. The use of QKD is limited by the costs of building the
necessary infrastructure, distance restrictions, and how simple it is to interoperate with other networks. Yet, QKD is seen as
merely a support for post-quantum cryptography and is primarily used for applications involving extremely sensitive information.

Figure 2: Schematic of a general quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol

6.4. Policy and Regulation:

Politicians, leaders, and organizations agree that technology alone cannot ensure information security in the quantum age.
Different regulations and policies are being set up to ensure that adopting Blockchain is safe and addresses all relevant ethical and
privacy concerns. Many nations are now including quantum readiness, setting standards, managing the security of their supply
chain, and collaborating with private companies in their cybersecurity policies. NIST, located in the U.S., guides government and
businesses on standardizing new quantum-safe algorithms. Forums like the Quantum Security Alliance are playing a role in
helping countries around the world harmonize their security policies. There is discussion on whether GDPR, along with other data
protection regulations, is secure enough regarding how long data is kept and the dangers of saving so-called quantum-safe
encrypted data now, with the option to decrypt it later. New laws are being created to tackle the risks that involve quantum
advancements and the privacy or security of the nation. Here, it is emphasized that being prepared for quantum cybersecurity
requires advancements, hands-on solutions, and well-organized rules.

ETHICAL AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS

 When quantum computing was introduced, it opened up difficulties that affect politics, safety, international affairs, and
personal rights. Settling these concerns often requires countries to secure their internet spaces from other countries while
simultaneously trying to build up their quantum technologies to gain the upper hand. Like the previous arms race involving
nuclear technologies, this competition appears in economic and technological fields and as a form of rivalry between nations.
With better quantum technology, a country could lead global communications, play a role in forming global rules, and have the
edge over other countries still developing in this area.

Table 7: Leading Nations in Quantum Computing Development and Their Strategic Objectives

Country Quantum Investment Focus Strategic Objective Estimated Quantum

Workforce (2025)
United Commercial quantum Maintain technological leadership and 12,000
States computing, PQC cyber defense
China Quantum communication, Achieve global information dominance 15,000
quantum internet and secure communications
European Standardization, PQC Foster interoperable, secure 8,000
Union algorithms infrastructures and economic
competitiveness
Canada Quantum algorithms and Support innovation ecosystems and 3,500
materials privacy protection

7.1. Source: Compiled from recent governmental and academic reports.

Quantum computing can affect cyberattacks since it may allow the decryption of secure information. Quantum algorithms like
Shor’s algorithm pose a risk to preventing hacking of communication data, stealing secret information, and damaging digital
signatures used for authentication. With this new way to use quantum, concerns about deterrence and defense in international
relations are increasing. Governments and security departments should forecast that because of quantum cryptography,
adversaries might seriously disrupt crucial infrastructure, influence financial systems, and block communication during conflict. It
requires adding new doctrines to our response strategies and more effective technology.
Surveillance and privacy raise similar complex issues due to how quantum technologies are distributed around the globe.
Should quantum advantage remain limited to a few countries or companies, information inequalities might further increase,
making it simple for them to spy on more people and exploit overwhelming quantities of information. Unapproved use of
quantum-based decryption makes it possible to access private, business, or government data that was never before part of the
threat. Also, due to the secrecy and skills involved in quantum attacks, clarifying who has committed them is challenging for laws
regulating nations and other actors. If we do not prevent a quantum divide, it could enable those who control quantum to watch
and control people with little or no checks on their authority.
 Figure 3: Conceptual Framework of Quantum Computing Ethical and Strategic Challenges.

As these issues and problems are urgent, countries need to cooperate globally. International agreements about quantum
technology can address the threats linked to rapid development in this field and privacy concerns. Ensuring that all research is
open, everyone can benefit from quantum-safe advances, and that authority over quantum technology is strong will make
quantum advances safeguard safety and the rights of ordinary people.

CONCLUSION
When quantum computing becomes a reality, it ushers in significant changes to computing, creating many new threats in
cybersecurity. Advances in quantum computing are making it easier to attack RSA and ECC, which might threaten the secure,
accurate, and available use of critical digital data. Since a quantum threat is approaching fast, the cybersecurity community needs
to increase the development and use of quantum-resistant algorithms. At the same time, shifting to post-quantum cryptography is
not easy or fast; it requires teaming up people from multiple fields, standardizing the process, and joining efforts from all relevant
organizations. Along with innovations, strong global strategies and international efforts are needed to handle the pertinent issues
related to cyber systems in quantum physics. As quantum computing advances, society must pay special attention to cybersecurity
to avoid any threats it may pose. The digital world can only be defended by ensuring proper research today, flexible cybersecurity
ahead of time, and strong rules in place.

REFERENCE

1] O'Brien, J. L. (2007). Optical quantum computing. Science, 318(5856), 1567-1570.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142892
2] Preskill, J. (2018). Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2, 79. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-
08-06-79
3] Brassard, G., Chuang, I., Lloyd, S., & Monroe, C. (1998). Quantum computing. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 95(19), 11032-11033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.19.11032
4] Knill, E. (2010). Quantum computing. Nature, 463(7280), 441-443. https://doi.org/10.1038/463441a
5] Li, S. S., Long, G. L., Bai, F. S., Feng, S. L., & Zheng, H. Z. (2001). Quantum computing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 98(21), 11847-11848. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.191373698
6] Cao, Y., Romero, J., Olson, J. P., Degroote, M., Johnson, P. D., Kieferová, M., ... & Aspuru-Guzik, A. (2019).
Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chemical reviews, 119(19), 10856-10915.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00803
7] Preskill, J. (1998). Quantum computing: pro and con. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1969), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1998.0171
8] Ladd, T. D., Jelezko, F., Laflamme, R., Nakamura, Y., Monroe, C., & O’Brien, J. L. (2010). Quantum
computers. nature, 464(7285), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08812
9] Javadi-Abhari, A., Treinish, M., Krsulich, K., Wood, C. J., Lishman, J., Gacon, J., ... & Gambetta, J. M. (2024).
Quantum computing with Qiskit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810
10] DiVincenzo, D. P. (1995). Quantum computation. Science, 270(5234), 255-261.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5234.255
11] Craigen, D., Diakun-Thibault, N., & Purse, R. (2014). Defining cybersecurity. Technology innovation management
review, 4(10). http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/835
12] Kemmerer, R. A. (2003, May). Cybersecurity. In the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003.
Proceedings. (pp. 705-715). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2003.1201257
13] Sarker, I. H., Kayes, A. S. M., Badsha, S., Alqahtani, H., Watters, P., & Ng, A. (2020). Cybersecurity data science: an
overview from a machine learning perspective. Journal of Big Data, 7, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-020-
00318-5
14] AlDaajeh, S., Saleous, H., Alrabaee, S., Barka, E., Breitinger, F., & Choo, K. K. R. (2022). The role of national
cybersecurity strategies in the improvement of cybersecurity education. Computers & Security, 119, 102754.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2022.102754
15] Florackis, C., Louca, C., Michaely, R., & Weber, M. (2023). Cybersecurity risk. The Review of Financial
Studies, 36(1), 351-407. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhac024
16] Handa, A., Sharma, A., & Shukla, S. K. (2019). Machine learning in cybersecurity: A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 9(4), e1306. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1306
17] Martínez Torres, J., Iglesias Comesaña, C., & García-Nieto, P. J. (2019). Machine learning techniques applied to
cybersecurity. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 10(10), 2823-2836.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-018-00906-1
18] Jang-Jaccard, J., & Nepal, S. (2014). A survey of emerging threats in cybersecurity. Journal of computer and system
sciences, 80(5), 973-993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2014.02.005
19] Veale, M., & Brown, I. (2020). Cybersecurity. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1533
20] Warner, M. (2012). Cybersecurity: A pre-history. Intelligence and National Security, 27(5), 781-799.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2012.708530
21] Bernstein, D. J., & Lange, T. (2017). Post-quantum cryptography. Nature, 549(7671), 188-194.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23461
22] Joseph, D., Misoczki, R., Manzano, M., Tricot, J., Pinuaga, F. D., Lacombe, O., ... & Hansen, R. (2022). Transitioning
organizations to post-quantum cryptography. Nature, 605(7909), 237-243.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04623-2
23] Kumar, M., & Pattnaik, P. (2020, September). Post quantum cryptography (pqc)-an overview. In 2020 IEEE High
Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HPEC43674.2020.9286147
24] Dam, D. T., Tran, T. H., Hoang, V. P., Pham, C. K., & Hoang, T. T. (2023). A survey of post-quantum cryptography:
Start of a new race. Cryptography, 7(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryptography7030040
25] Song, F. (2014, October). A note on quantum security for post-quantum cryptography. In International Workshop on
Post-Quantum Cryptography (pp. 246-265). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11659-4_15
26] Bavdekar, R., Chopde, E. J., Agrawal, A., Bhatia, A., & Tiwari, K. (2023, January). Post quantum cryptography: a
review of techniques, challenges and standardizations. In 2023 International Conference on Information Networking
(ICOIN) (pp. 146-151). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOIN56518.2023.10048976
27] Paquin, C., Stebila, D., & Tamvada, G. (2020). Benchmarking post-quantum cryptography in TLS. In Post-Quantum
Cryptography: 11th International Conference, PQCrypto 2020, Paris, France, April 15–17, 2020, Proceedings 11 (pp.
72-91). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44223-1_5
28] Borges, F., Reis, P. R., & Pereira, D. (2020). A comparison of security and its performance for key agreements in post-
quantum cryptography. IEEE Access, 8, 142413-142422. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3013250
29] Kumar, M. (2022). Post-quantum cryptography algorithms' standardization and performance analysis. Array, 15,
100242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2022.100242
30] Barbosa, M., Barthe, G., Fan, X., Grégoire, B., Hung, S. H., Katz, J., ... & Zhou, L. (2021, November). EasyPQC:
Verifying post-quantum cryptography. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and
Communications Security (pp. 2564-2586). https://doi.org/10.1145/3460120.3484567
31] Albrecht, M. R., Celi, S., Dowling, B., & Jones, D. (2023, May). Practically exploitable cryptographic vulnerabilities
in matrix. In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. 164-181). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SP46215.2023.10351027
32] Rahaman, S., Xiao, Y., Afrose, S., Shaon, F., Tian, K., Frantz, M., ... & Yao, D. (2019, November). Cryptoguard:
High precision detection of cryptographic vulnerabilities in massive-sized Java projects. In Proceedings of the 2019
ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 2455-2472).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3345659
33] Schneier, B. (2002). Cryptographic design vulnerabilities. Computer, 31(9), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.708447
34] Alashwali, E. S. (2013, June). Cryptographic vulnerabilities in real-life web servers. In 2013, Third International
Conference on Communications and Information Technology (ICCIT) (pp. 6-11). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCITechnology.2013.6579513
35] Lazar, D., Chen, H., Wang, X., & Zeldovich, N. (2014, June). Why does cryptographic software fail? A case study and
open problems. In Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Systems (pp. 1-7).
https://doi.org/10.1145/2637166.2637237
36] Xiao, Y., Zhao, Y., Allen, N., Keynes, N., Yao, D., & Cifuentes, C. (2023). Industrial experience in finding
cryptographic vulnerabilities in large-scale codebases. Digital Threats: Research and Practice, 4(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3507682
37] Blessing, J., Specter, M. A., & Weitzner, D. J. (2024, July). Cryptography in the Wild: An Empirical Analysis of
Vulnerabilities in Cryptographic Libraries. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Asia Conference on Computer and
Communications Security (pp. 605-620). https://doi.org/10.1145/3634737.3657012
38] Lou, X., Zhang, T., Jiang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2021). A survey of microarchitectural side-channel vulnerabilities, attacks,
and defenses in cryptography. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(6), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3456629
39] Blessing, J., Specter, M. A., & Weitzner, D. J. (2021). You Really Shouldn't Roll Your Crypto: An Empirical Study of
Vulnerabilities in Cryptographic Libraries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04940.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.04940
40] Brackin, S. H. (2000, January). Automatically detecting most vulnerabilities in cryptographic protocols.
In Proceedings DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition. DISCEX'00 (Vol. 1, pp. 222-236).
IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DISCEX.2000.824981]
41] Broadbent, A., & Schaffner, C. (2016). Quantum cryptography beyond quantum key distribution. Designs, Codes and
Cryptography, 78, 351-382.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623-015-0157-4
42] Renner, R. (2008). Security of quantum key distribution. International Journal of Quantum Information, 6(01), 1-127.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749908003256
43] Liao, S. K., Cai, W. Q., Liu, W. Y., Zhang, L., Li, Y., Ren, J. G., ... & Pan, J. W. (2017). Satellite-to-ground quantum
key distribution. Nature, 549(7670), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23655
44] Wolf, R. (2021). Quantum key distribution. Lecture notes in physics, 988. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73991-1
45] Cao, Y., Zhao, Y., Wang, Q., Zhang, J., Ng, S. X., & Hanzo, L. (2022). The evolution of quantum key distribution
networks: On the road to the qinternet. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 24(2), 839-894.
https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3144219
46] Diamanti, E., Lo, H. K., Qi, B., & Yuan, Z. (2016). Practical challenges in quantum key distribution. npj Quantum
Information, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2016.25
47] Mehic, M., Niemiec, M., Rass, S., Ma, J., Peev, M., Aguado, A., ... & Voznak, M. (2020). Quantum key distribution: a
networking perspective. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 53(5), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1145/3402192
48] Alléaume, R., Branciard, C., Bouda, J., Debuisschert, T., Dianati, M., Gisin, N., ... & Zeilinger, A. (2014). Using
quantum key distribution for cryptographic purposes: A survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 560, 62-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.09.018
49] Boyer, M., Kenigsberg, D., & Mor, T. (2007, January). Quantum key distribution with classical Bob. In 2007 First
International Conference on Quantum, Nano, and Micro Technologies (ICQNM'07) (pp. 10-10). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICQNM.2007.18
50] Bedington, R., Arrazola, J. M., & Ling, A. (2017). Progress in satellite quantum key distribution. npj Quantum
Information, 3(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0031-5