Yes. We really do.
Not just because quantum computers may one day be able to break today’s encryptions. The threat isn’t purely on the horizon. It’s here today – in intent, strategy, and preparation.
Quantum-resistant cryptography isn’t just a theoretical safeguard. It’s a practical, strategic imperative for an organisation that relies on secure data exchange today and wants to stay secure in the future.
The Quantum threat isn’t future fiction
We’ve known for some time that current cryptographic systems, such as RSA, ECC, or ECDH, are fundamentally vulnerable to quantum attacks. Quantum algorithms like Shor’s can reduce problems that would take a classical computer millions of years to mere hours on a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC).
But the timeline is shifting. Recent reports, such as the one published in March by ATIS, suggest that we may see hybrid or partial quantum attacks before 2030, and full cryptanalytic capabilities as early as 2032. This is years sooner than previously anticipated.
And it’s not just about when a quantum computer arrives. Attackers are harvesting encrypted data today to decrypt later – a strategy know as Harvest Now, Decrypt Later (HNDL). Even with quantum computing still in the lab – every communication, transaction, or sensitive file encrypted with legacy protocols is already at risk.
If you, or your organisation’s leadership, are still viewing quantum threats as science fiction, something has to change.
Enter post-quantum cryptography
Encryption depends on four key steps:
- A source of randomness
- A method to agree on keys
- A way to authenticate endpoints
- An algorithm to encrypt/decrypt the data
Points 2 and 3 – key exchange and authentication – are the weakest points. Both are underpinned in most instances by public key cryptography, using algorithms such as RSA and ECC. And both are breakable with quantum machines.
To combat this, a new breed of cryptographic protocols has risen, known as post-quantum cryptography or PQC. With classical key exchange methods, the weakness comes from the mathematical problem used during the key exchange. PQC uses alternative problems that, according to ongoing research efforts, are equally as difficult for a quantum computer to crack as classical problems are for classical computers.
Currently, NIST in the US has announced a number of standards for post-quantum cryptography – ML-KEM for key exchange, and ML-DSA and SLH-DSA for digital signing. These are an important step forward – but they aren’t a silver bullet.
Challenges with existing PQC solutions
Focusing on ML-KEM, while it provides strong security it does have drawbacks. The main drawback is that it is relatively resource-intensive to run, meaning that systems secured using ML-KEM may be slower than other systems. Obviously, many will feel that’s a price worth paying for security from quantum attack. But in industries such as defence, where communications delays could cost lives, or fintech, where trades need to take place in nanoseconds, those delays could have material impacts on how they operate.
It also means that in constrained environments, such as SIM cards of IoT devices, ML-KEM may not be able to run at all. This leaves fairly critical vulnerabilities in your network, especially when Q-Day does happen.
Additionally, PQC is complex to implement and can require extensive re-engineering of systems. This effort can slow PQC migration efforts, and may put some off starting them altogether (especially if leadership is already sceptical that quantum attacks are a real threat in the first place).
And that’s where Cavero Quantum comes in.
Symmetrikey: quantum-safe security even in constrained environments
At Cavero Quantum we are proud to have created Symmetrikey to answer the challenges with current PQC solutions. Symmetrikey replaces vulnerable key exchange mechanisms with protocols that are safe against both classical and quantum attacks, while remaining lightweight enough to run in any environment, even on IoT devices.
How Symmetrikey works
Symmetrikey uses a technique called Ring Learning With Errors (RLWE) as the basis of security, in combination with correlation filtering, inspired by Quantum Key Distribution (QKD).
It enables two endpoints to generate a shared secret key in a way that:
- Doesn’t rely on RSA or ECC
- Doesn’t require trusted third parties or heavy infrastructure
- Can’t be reverse engineered, even with quantum computing
Because of the correlation filtering, Symmetrikey has been shown in benchmark tests to run twice as fast as ML-KEM, and to require less computing power to do so. This makes it ideal for use across cloud, IoT, telecoms, edge devices, and even legacy applications and hardware.
We haven’t stopped there, though.
Authentikey: quantum-safe endpoint authentication
Beyond quantum security, there are other challenges in the authentication landscape. Many authentication methods are ‘one way’ – that is, one party authenticates the other, but not the other way around. This leaves them vulnerable to social engineering and phishing attacks. To combat this, we developed Authentikey – the world’s first Continuous Trust Verification Protocol.
Like PKI, Authentikey uses keys in its process – but in Authentikey, each party creates a shared ledger of key exchanges which becomes the basis of trust, after the initial authentication. This protects against authentication decay: the decreasing strength of authentication based on factors such as the length of time since the authentication took place, such as using root certificates that are years old. Because each party uses the key exchange to challenge the other, Authentikey authenticates both endpoints with the other.
What makes Symmetrikey unique
NIST’s standardisation of ML-KEM and ML-DSA is an important step forward – but Symmetrikey does something slightly different:
- It’s not a Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM), making it easier to engineer into systems using ECDH.
- Its use of correlation filtering means Symmetrikey runs faster than other PQC algorithms.
- It is lightweight to run, making it possible to secure IoT devices and legacy hardware.
No one gets an accurate countdown clock to Q-Day
Quantum innovation is happening faster than anyone expected, with breakthroughs in cat qubits, error correction, and hybrid attacks potentially moving the threat timeline forward by 5–10 years.
Transitioning to quantum-safe cryptography takes time. It’s not a switch you flip — it’s a gradual evolution of systems, software, policies, and people. If you wait until quantum computers arrive, you’re already too late.
So, do we really need quantum-resistant cryptography?
If your data matters in 10 years, or your business depends on secure infrastructure, or your organisation wants to stay ahead of adversaries who are already planning for the quantum future — then yes, you absolutely do.
Symmetrikey from Cavero Quantum isn’t just ready. It’s robust, scalable, and built for the world we’re heading into — not the one we’re leaving behind.
Talk to us today about how to start your quantum-safe journey.