Quantum Cybersecurity: Preparing for the Post-Quantum Political Landscape

Vladimir Tsakanyan

I. Introduction: The Quantum Dawn and the Looming Cyber Shift

The advent of quantum computing marks a pivotal moment in technological history, ushering in the next generation of supercomputing platforms.¹ These revolutionary machines harness the counter-intuitive principles of quantum mechanics, such as superposition and entanglement, to process vast amounts of data and execute complex algorithms at speeds far exceeding classical computers.¹ The transformative potential of quantum computing was first recognized decades ago with the discovery that these systems could efficiently break asymmetric cryptographic protocols, a capability that underpins much of modern digital security.⁴

While quantum computing promises immense opportunities across diverse sectors—from accelerating drug discovery in pharmaceuticals and optimizing financial models to advancing materials science and machine learning ³—it simultaneously presents a profound and immediate threat to the very foundations of modern digital security.¹ This inherent duality creates a unique challenge for nations: they must simultaneously pursue the beneficial applications of quantum technology while also developing robust defenses against its disruptive potential. This dynamic elevates quantum cybersecurity beyond a mere technical challenge, positioning it as a paramount geopolitical concern that is actively reshaping international relations and national strategies.⁸ Nations worldwide now view advanced quantum technologies as critical strategic assets, indispensable for future economic prowess, military strength, and technological sovereignty.⁵

II. The Quantum Threat: A New Era of Vulnerability

At its core, quantum computing fundamentally differs from classical computing. Classical computers operate on binary bits (0 or 1) processed sequentially, while quantum computers leverage quantum bits, or “qubits,” which can exist in multiple states simultaneously through superposition and become interconnected through entanglement.² This allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations, leading to exponential speedups for certain complex problems that are currently intractable for classical machines.²

Specific Cryptographic Threats Posed by Quantum Computers

The most immediate and widely recognized threat is to public-key cryptography. Quantum computers, specifically utilizing Shor’s algorithm, can efficiently factor large integers, which is the mathematical basis for widely used asymmetric encryption methods like Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA), Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC), and Diffie-Hellman (DH).¹ For instance, a quantum computer capable of breaking RSA-2048, a high-security version, is a significant concern.⁴ This capability directly threatens the security backbone of online banking, digital communications, and critical infrastructure.⁹

Beyond decryption, quantum computing could enable attackers to forge digital signatures, leading to the potential falsification of critical documents, financial transactions, and identity verification processes.¹ A particularly insidious threat is the “Store Now, Decrypt Later” (SNDL) or “Harvest and Decrypt” strategy. Malicious actors are already collecting and storing encrypted sensitive data today, anticipating that sufficiently powerful quantum computers will become available in the future to decrypt this intercepted information.⁷ This strategy transforms a prospective threat into a present danger for any organization handling information requiring long-term confidentiality.⁷ Data such as government secrets, healthcare records, financial transactions, or insurance policies, which must remain secure for decades, are already exposed to future decryption, regardless of the precise “Q-day” timeline.¹⁰ This necessitates an immediate, proactive approach to Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) migration, especially for sectors managing highly sensitive or classified information.

The vulnerabilities extend across a wide array of systems, from core asymmetric encryption and blockchain technologies to IoT devices, secure communication protocols, and critical national infrastructure.¹ This is not a collection of isolated threats but rather a systemic vulnerability, where compromising one foundational layer inevitably creates cascading ripple effects throughout all dependent systems. For example, many blockchain technologies, including cryptocurrencies, rely on cryptographic algorithms vulnerable to quantum attacks, potentially undermining their foundational security and trust mechanisms.¹ Similarly, IoT devices often employ lightweight cryptography that may not be designed to withstand quantum attacks, exposing entire networks to potential breaches.¹ Governments are responding, with the US Executive Order setting a January 4, 2027, deadline for all IoT devices sold to the federal government to display the US Cyber Trust Mark, signifying adherence to rigorous security standards.¹¹ Quantum computers could also decrypt secure communications protocols like HTTPS and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), leading to a widespread loss of privacy and undermining safe internet usage.¹ In response, the US EO mandates that federal systems support Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol 1.3, which incorporates modern cryptographic protections against quantum and other threats, by January 2, 2030.¹¹ Ultimately, government, healthcare, financial, and utility systems that currently rely on traditional cryptography could become highly vulnerable to quantum-powered cyberattacks, posing a significant risk to national security and societal stability.¹ This systemic risk underscores the critical importance of supply chain security, as vulnerabilities introduced at any point in the chain can compromise an entire system.¹²

The Urgency of the Threat

While some estimates suggest a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) capable of breaking RSA-2048 might be three decades away (around 2055-2060), other projections are more optimistic, suggesting as early as 2035 with advancements in quantum error correction.⁴ The Global Risk Institute warns that CRQCs may emerge faster than many anticipate.¹ This uncertainty underscores the need for proactive preparation. Dr. Michele Mosca’s theorem succinctly illustrates the immediate imperative: the amount of time data must remain secure (X), plus the time it takes to upgrade cryptographic systems (Y), must be greater than the time at which quantum computers have enough power to break cryptography (Z).¹⁰ Given that cryptographic system upgrades are notoriously lengthy processes (e.g., the transition from DES to AES took almost a decade) ⁶, delaying planning for PQC transition could be exceptionally damaging.⁶

Table 1: Key Quantum Threats to Current Cryptography

Vulnerable Cryptographic Methods/Systems	Threatening Quantum Algorithms	Specific Impacts/Consequences
RSA, ECC, Diffie-Hellman (DH)	Shor’s Algorithm	Current Encryption Rendered Obsolete, Sensitive Data Decryption (Harvest Now, Decrypt Later) 1
Digital Signatures	Shor’s Algorithm	Forged Digital Signatures 1
Blockchain (e.g., PoW, PoS), Cryptocurrencies	Shor’s Algorithm	Undermined Blockchain Security & Trust, Counterfeiting/Theft of Crypto 1
IoT Lightweight Cryptography	Shor’s Algorithm, Grover’s Algorithm	IoT Network Breaches 1
HTTPS, VPNs	Shor’s Algorithm	Loss of Communication Privacy, Compromised Secure Web Usage 1
Government, Healthcare, Financial, Utility Systems	Shor’s Algorithm, Grover’s Algorithm	Critical Infrastructure Disruption, System Vulnerabilities 1
General Cryptographic Systems	Quantum-Enabled Cyberattacks	Emergence of Sophisticated, Faster Attacks 1
AES (Advanced Encryption Standard)	Grover’s Algorithm	Potential for Brute-Force Attacks (quadratic speedup) 3

III. The Global Race for Quantum Supremacy: Geopolitical Implications

Quantum computing has rapidly emerged as a new frontier of great-power competition in the 21st century, often likened to a new industrial revolution.³ Governments globally have already invested over $40 billion in quantum research and development, launching national initiatives to secure a leading position in this critical domain.⁸

National Security and Military Applications

Quantum technologies extend far beyond merely breaking encryption; they have direct and profound military applications. This includes significantly assisting in defense-related computations, such as complex simulations and optimizations for military strategies.⁶ Quantum communications promise ultra-secure links, which are vital for command and control systems in military operations, ensuring communications remain impenetrable.⁸ Furthermore, quantum sensing can dramatically improve detection capabilities. For instance, quantum sensors might be able to detect submarines or stealth aircraft by sensing minute gravitational or magnetic anomalies, potentially undermining traditional stealth technologies and second-strike capabilities.⁸ These advancements have the potential to fundamentally disrupt existing military balances and doctrines.⁸

The prospect of a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC) reaching maturity (often dubbed “Q-day”) is considered a potential game-changer for national security.⁸ If one nation develops a CRQC significantly ahead of others, it could create profound strategic instability. This could trigger frantic efforts by other nations to catch up, potentially involving massive resource allocation to crash programs, or even risky espionage and sabotage to hinder the leading nation’s progress.⁸ Such a scenario could escalate to an arms-race intensity, severely straining international relations and diverting substantial funds into quantum militarization.⁸ Some analysts speculate about a concept of “quantum deterrence,” where if both sides possess CRQCs, a new balance might emerge, akin to mutual assured destruction, but in this context, “mutual assured decryption”.⁸ The period during which one nation possesses a CRQC and others do not is considered exceptionally perilous. It might tempt the leading power to exploit its advantage before others acquire the technology or transition to quantum-safe encryption, potentially leading to an escalation of conflicts.⁸ Even in peacetime, the intelligence advantage gained from possessing a CRQC could significantly shift economic and political leverage, allowing a leading nation to decipher trade strategies, uncover sensitive information about leaders, or compromise critical infrastructure.⁸ The ability to potentially keep CRQC development secret for some time further contributes to geopolitical anxiety.⁸

Economic Competitiveness and Technological Sovereignty

Quantum technologies are widely recognized as key drivers for future economic prowess, military strength, and technological leadership.⁵ There is a fierce global competition for technological leadership. A closer examination of global investment reveals a distinct asymmetry in national quantum strategies. China, for instance, leads significantly in public investment, having committed $15 billion to quantum R&D, reflecting a state-driven, top-down approach aimed at rapid commercialization and translating breakthroughs into tangible products, particularly evident in its leadership in quantum communications.¹³ In contrast, the United States leads substantially in private sector investment, accounting for 44% of global funding, and demonstrates leadership in quantum computing research quality and patent dominance.¹³ This indicates a more private-sector-led, innovation-driven model, supported by foundational research. This divergence implies that the quantum race is not a monolithic competition but a multi-faceted one, where different nations may achieve leadership in distinct quantum sub-fields. Overall, private funding for quantum companies reached a cumulative $15 billion by 2024.¹³

The US demonstrates leadership in quantum computing research quality (34% of top-cited papers) and dominates the quantum patent landscape, followed by Japan and China.¹³ China, however, leads in quantum communications research (34%) and is nearly tied with the US in quantum sensing (around 23%).¹³ The strong emphasis on achieving “technological sovereignty” and cultivating “indigenous quantum ecosystems” ⁸, coupled with the critical need for “resilient supply chains” and monitoring “dependencies on critical raw materials” ⁵, suggests that quantum technology is accelerating a broader trend towards economic nationalism. Nations are not merely competing for leadership; they are actively seeking to reduce reliance on foreign inputs for critical quantum components and expertise, mirroring trends observed in other strategic technology sectors. China’s 14th Five-Year Plan explicitly aims to “unleash indigenous innovation and reduce reliance on foreign inputs”.¹³ This drive towards self-reliance could lead to a fragmentation of the global quantum ecosystem, potentially slowing overall scientific progress due to reduced international collaboration and increasing the cost of quantum R&D and deployment.

The rapid growth of quantum technologies risks outpacing the availability of skilled workers, creating an evolving need for specialized education and workforce training.⁵ Governments are responding by adjusting educational programs and introducing vocational training courses to prepare professionals for the quantum workforce.⁵ Equally important are resilient supply chains for quantum components. While these are still emerging, policymakers must monitor dependencies on critical raw materials (e.g., rare earth elements) and secure reliable sources for essential components like cryogenic systems and photonics equipment.⁵

Table 2: Global Quantum Investment Landscape (Public vs. Private)

Metric/Category	China	European Union (EU)	United States (US)	Other Key Players (Collective)
Public Investment (Total)	$15 Billion	>$10 Billion (Germany key) 13	$5 Billion	South Korea, Japan, Russia, Canada 13
Private Sector Investment (Share of Global Funding)	17%	>12%	44%	UK, Canada, Australia (20% collectively) 13
Quantum Computing Research Quality (Top-Cited Papers)	16%	N/A (Germany 4%)	34%	N/A
Quantum Communications Research Quality	34%	N/A (Germany 7%)	17%	N/A
Quantum Sensing Research Quality	23.3%	N/A (Germany 8%)	23.7%	N/A
Patent Landscape Dominance	Significant	Limited (Germany, France)	Dominates	Japan (Significant) 13

Note: Cumulative private funding reached $15 billion by 2024 globally.¹³

IV. Preparing for the Quantum Future: Policy, Standardization, and Transition

Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Standardization

Recognizing the impending threat to current encryption, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated a global standardization process for quantum-secure cryptographic primitives in December 2016.¹⁵ The primary focus has been on public-key cryptography, specifically digital signatures and key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs), as symmetric primitives are generally easier to adapt.¹⁵ This multi-year process involved several rounds of submissions from global researchers, rigorous evaluation, and public attacks against proposed algorithms to test their resilience.¹⁵

NIST announced its first set of selected algorithms in July 2022, with further selections in 2025:

• FIPS 203 (ML-KEM): Designated as the primary standard for general encryption. It is based on the CRYSTALS-Kyber algorithm (lattice-based) and is favored for its comparatively small encryption keys and operational speed.¹⁵
• FIPS 204 (ML-DSA): The primary standard for protecting digital signatures, based on the CRYSTALS-Dilithium algorithm (lattice-based).¹⁵
• FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA): A backup standard for digital signatures, employing the SPHINCS+ algorithm (hash-based). This standard uses a different mathematical approach than ML-DSA, providing a crucial layer of resilience in case vulnerabilities are discovered in the lattice-based primary.¹⁵
• FN-DSA: The draft FIPS 206 standard, based on the FALCON algorithm (FFT over NTRU-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm), is also being developed.¹⁵
• HQC (Hamming Quasi-Cyclic): Selected in March 2025 as a backup algorithm for key encapsulation/exchange (KEM). HQC is a code-based scheme, offering a distinct mathematical foundation from the lattice-based ML-KEM, thereby mitigating potential weaknesses if found in the primary algorithm. The draft standard is expected in early 2026, with the final version in 2027.¹⁵
  
  The rationale for these selections is detailed in NIST’s official status reports (NIST IR 8413 in July 2022 and IR 8545 in March 2025).16

Policy Frameworks and Legislation

The US Executive Order on Cybersecurity, issued on June 6, 2025, titled “Sustaining Select Efforts to Strengthen the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” signals a fortified cyber defense posture for federal operations, modernizing risk management and directly addressing quantum threats.¹¹ The detailed requirements and strict deadlines outlined in this Executive Order demonstrate that governments are actively leveraging their regulatory and procurement power to mandate the quantum transition. For example, by December 1, 2025, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) are mandated to identify viable PQC products, requiring businesses selling or operating cryptographic services within federal systems to begin assessing their PQC readiness.¹¹ By January 2, 2030, federal systems must support Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol 1.3 or successor protocols, with TLS 1.3 incorporating modern cryptographic protections against quantum threats and linked to FIPS 140-3 compliance for cryptographic modules.¹¹ Furthermore, by January 4, 2027, all IoT devices sold to the federal government must display the US Cyber Trust Mark, signifying adherence to rigorous federal security standards.¹¹ For many businesses, particularly those operating within federal supply chains or critical infrastructure sectors, PQC adoption will therefore be driven primarily by compliance requirements and the potential legal and financial penalties for non-compliance ¹⁷, rather than solely by an immediate perceived quantum threat. This creates a strong, non-negotiable incentive for early action and will significantly shape the market for quantum-safe products and services, accelerating their development and deployment.

Similarly, the European Union recognizes the urgent need to act proactively to safeguard its digital infrastructure and economy against future quantum-enabled cyberattacks.¹⁸ The EU’s Network and Information Security (NIS 2) Directive provides a crucial framework for addressing supply chain risks by expanding cybersecurity requirements across essential and non-essential sectors. In the quantum context, NIS 2 can play a vital role by mandating the transition to quantum-safe systems in affected sectors.¹⁸ The EU’s agenda includes enhancing awareness among national cybersecurity agencies and industry, establishing a dual quantum-safe roadmap (leveraging both PQC and Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)), and introducing quantum-safe as a requisite in public procurement.⁹ Given the global nature of the quantum threat, international cooperation is critical for developing common policies, standards, and regulations.⁵ This includes working with allies on technology transfer policies and utilizing existing mechanisms like AUKUS and the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council to foster collaboration.⁶

The Challenge of Migration and Cryptographic Agility

The quantum-safe transformation is a cryptographic migration of unprecedented complexity, requiring fundamental changes to existing security protocols and architectures, along with continuous cryptography monitoring and management.¹² This task cannot be effectively managed by individual enterprises in isolation.¹² A significant challenge arises from managing technical debt, particularly for organizations relying on older systems incapable of running modern cryptographic profiles.¹⁰ Furthermore, cryptography is frequently embedded within components throughout the global supply chain, meaning that even if an enterprise secures its own applications, vulnerabilities in third-party software it uses can still pose a major threat.¹² This often points to a deeper, more insidious problem: many organizations lack a comprehensive inventory of their cryptographic assets. They may not know precisely where all their cryptographic algorithms are deployed, what versions they are, or how deeply integrated they are into legacy systems and third-party software. This “hidden debt” makes the quantum transition far more complex than a simple algorithm swap, necessitating extensive discovery, detailed inventorying, and often a fundamental re-architecture of existing applications and systems.¹

Cryptographic agility is the critical capability of an organization to swiftly and efficiently transition between different cryptographic algorithms and protocols in response to emerging threats and technological advancements.¹⁷ It encompasses a comprehensive strategy that includes assessing and inventorying current cryptographic assets, developing robust processes for implementing new cryptographic standards, and engaging stakeholders across the organization.¹⁷ The objective is to adapt the data security posture without requiring extensive application re-architecture.¹⁹ Embedding cryptographic agility minimizes transition times, ensures compliance with evolving regulatory requirements, and maintains the security of sensitive data and communications.¹⁷ In the post-quantum era, cryptographic updates will likely become a regular necessity rather than a rare occurrence.¹⁷ Organizations unable to adapt quickly risk potential breaches, significant financial losses, non-compliance penalties, and irreparable damage to customer trust.¹⁷

Industry initiatives and consortia are essential for facilitating the quantum transition. They help align on industry-wide requirements (e.g., interoperability, backward compatibility), drive awareness among vendors and suppliers, develop best practices and example solutions (e.g., NIST’s National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, NCCoE), and support open-source software development (e.g., Open Quantum Safe, PQ Code Package).¹² Notable examples include IBM’s involvement in NIST algorithm development, the Emerging Payments Association Asia (EPAA) work group for financial services, and the Post-Quantum Telco Network (PQTN) task force, which brings together over 60 companies from the global telco supply chain.¹²

Table 3: Key US and EU Quantum Cybersecurity Policy Deadlines/Initiatives

Policy/Initiative	Key Action/Requirement	Deadline/Timeline	Responsible Entities/Scope
US Executive Order (June 2025)	CISA/NSA identify viable PQC products	December 1, 2025 11	CISA, NSA, Federal Contractors
	Federal systems support TLS 1.3 (FIPS 140-3 compliant)	January 2, 2030 11	Federal Agencies, Businesses handling federal data
	IoT devices display US Cyber Trust Mark	January 4, 2027 11	IoT Device Manufacturers, Federal Government Procurement
EU NIS 2 Directive	Mandate quantum-safe transition in essential/non-essential sectors	“Time is of the essence” (Ongoing framework) 18	EU Member States, Essential/Non-essential Sectors
	Enhance awareness in national cybersecurity agencies/industry	Ongoing 18	National Cybersecurity Agencies, Industry
	Establish dual quantum-safe roadmap (PQC + QKD)	Ongoing 18	EU Institutions, Member States
	Introduce quantum-safe as requisite in public procurement	Ongoing 18	Public Sector Entities, Suppliers
NIST PQC Standardization	Standardize quantum-secure primitives (PQC algorithms)	Ongoing since 2016 15	Global Cryptography Community, Technology Developers
	Release FIPS 203 (ML-KEM), FIPS 204 (ML-DSA), FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA)	July 2022 (first selections) 15	NIST
	Select HQC (Key Encapsulation Mechanism backup)	March 2025 (selection), Early 2026 (draft), 2027 (final) 15	NIST

V. Beyond the Threat: Opportunities in the Quantum Era

While quantum computing poses significant threats, it also promises revolutionary advancements in cybersecurity. This includes the capability for rapid detection of cyberattacks by analyzing massive datasets at unprecedented speeds, enabling security systems to identify patterns and anomalies in real-time.⁹ Furthermore, quantum research is directly leading to the development of stronger, more resilient cryptographic standards designed to protect digital data against future threats.⁹ The same fundamental quantum principles and technological advancements that enable code-breaking (e.g., Shor’s algorithm for breaking RSA) also enable ultra-secure communications (e.g., QKD) and rapid threat detection.⁹ This creates a dynamic where progress in quantum technology simultaneously creates new, more sophisticated threats and provides the very means to develop countermeasures and more robust security solutions. It is an inherent, continuous arms race within the quantum domain itself.

Innovations such as the quantum internet and satellite-based Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) hold the promise of ultra-secure communication systems that are theoretically impenetrable to eavesdropping and interception.⁹ While QKD offers significant security benefits, it currently faces scalability hurdles that need to be overcome for widespread adoption.⁵

Quantum-as-a-Service (QaaS)

This emerging model democratizes access to quantum computing capabilities. QaaS allows researchers and companies to access complex, high-maintenance, and expensive quantum computers owned, operated, and maintained by a third-party provider, often through cloud services or the internet.⁶ While QaaS is presented as a democratizing force by reducing the capital expenditure barrier, making quantum computing capabilities available to a wider audience ⁶, the underlying reality remains that quantum computers are inherently complex, high-maintenance, and expensive.⁶ This suggests that cutting-edge quantum capabilities, even when accessed via QaaS, will likely remain concentrated in the hands of a few leading nations, large corporations, or well-funded research institutions. This creates a potential “quantum divide” between those who can afford or effectively leverage these advanced resources and those who cannot.

The economic implications of QaaS are significant: it increases accessibility to advanced computing power for a wider audience, including universities and national programs, without the prohibitive capital expenditure of owning physical quantum hardware.⁶ This model reduces the financial barrier, accelerates research and development across various scientific fields, and allows organizations to focus on their core competencies rather than the complexities of quantum hardware maintenance.⁶ It also fosters global collaboration by enabling allied researchers to access shared quantum resources.⁶

Other Transformative Applications

Beyond cybersecurity, quantum computing offers other profound transformative applications. Quantum algorithms promise faster, more accurate machine learning results that can be achieved with less training data than required for conventional computers.³ Quantum computers can also perform complex optimization and logistical problems faster than classical computers.⁴ They can simulate complex quantum systems with unparalleled accuracy, offering profound insights into materials science, chemistry, and fundamental physics that are currently beyond the reach of classical supercomputers.³ Furthermore, quantum sensing offers the possibility of more precise and secure navigation, which is critical for numerous civilian, commercial, and military systems that heavily rely on GPS and the Precision Navigation and Timing data it provides.⁶

VI. Conclusion: A Call to Action for a Quantum-Safe Future

The quantum imperative is unavoidable. The threat of “Harvest Now, Decrypt Later” means sensitive data with long-term confidentiality is already at risk today, making this a present, not just a future, problem.⁷ The varying timelines for Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers underscore that waiting is not an option; proactive measures are immediately necessary.⁴

Successfully navigating this unprecedented transition demands unprecedented collaboration. This involves coordinated efforts across governments, industries, academia, and international partners.⁶ A holistic approach is essential, encompassing not just technical upgrades to PQC, but also strategic policy alignment, dedicated workforce development programs, and the cultivation of resilient quantum supply chains.⁵

The critical importance of embedding cryptographic agility as a core organizational principle cannot be overstated.¹⁷ This adaptability will be the key to swiftly responding to evolving threats and integrating new standards in a dynamic quantum era. By fostering international cooperation and embracing continuous innovation, the global community can collectively navigate the quantum transition, mitigate the risks, and shape a truly quantum-safe and secure digital future for all.

Works cited

1. What Is Quantum Computing’s Threat to Cybersecurity? – Palo Alto Networks, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-quantum-computings-threat-to-cybersecurity
2. The Emerging Potential for Quantum Computing in Irregular Warfare, accessed July 9, 2025, https://irregularwarfarecenter.org/publications/insights/the-emerging-potential-for-quantum-computing-in-irregular-warfare/
3. Quantum Computing and The Future of Data Privacy – Certes Networks, accessed July 9, 2025, https://certes.ai/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Certes-Quantum-Computing-and-The-Future-of-Data-Privacy.pdf
4. QUANTUM COMPUTING: QUANTIFYING THE … – MITRE Corporation, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/PR-24-3812-Quantum-Computing-Quantifying-Current-State-Assess-Cybersecurity-Threats.pdf
5. A policymaker’s guide to quantum technologies in 2025 – OECD, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2025/02/a-policymakers-guide-to-quantum-technologies-in-2025.html
6. Quantum Technology: Applications and Implications – CSIS, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/quantum-technology-applications-and-implications
7. Quantum computing concerns & positive impacts | Sectigo® Official, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.sectigo.com/resource-library/quantum-computing-concerns-positive-impacts
8. Quantum Geopolitics: The Global Race for Quantum Computing, accessed July 9, 2025, https://postquantum.com/quantum-computing/quantum-geopolitics/
9. Quantum’s Impact on Cybersecurity: The Hero and Villain – Viva Technology, accessed July 9, 2025, https://vivatechnology.com/news/quantum-s-impact-on-cybersecurity
10. Quantum is coming – KPMG International, accessed July 9, 2025, https://kpmg.com/dp/en/home/insights/2024/04/quantum-and-cybersecurity.html
11. Building the Cyber Fortress: New Cybersecurity Executive Order …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.governmentcontractslaw.com/2025/06/building-the-cyber-fortress-new-cybersecurity-executive-order-targets-quantum-ai-and-supply-chain-security/
12. Charting a path to quantum-safe transformation | IBM Quantum …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/quantum-safe-consortia
13. Benchmarking Quantum Technology Performance: Governments …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://ecipe.org/publications/benchmarking-quantum-technology-performance/
14. ecipe.org, accessed July 9, 2025, https://ecipe.org/publications/benchmarking-quantum-technology-performance/#:~:text=The%20US%20leads%20in%20investment,regions%20exhibit%20unique%20research%20priorities.
15. NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_Post-Quantum_Cryptography_Standardization
16. Post-Quantum Cryptography | CSRC, accessed July 9, 2025, https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography/selected-algorithms
17. Introduction to Crypto-Agility – PostQuantum.com, accessed July 9, 2025, https://postquantum.com/post-quantum/introduction-crypto-agility/
18. A Quantum Cybersecurity Agenda for Europe II: Enabling policy and …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.epc.eu/publication/A-quantum-cybersecurity-agenda-for-Europe-II-60c188/
19. Part 1: What is Crypto-Agility? Essential Security Strategies Beyond Post-Quantum Readiness – Prime Factors, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.primefactors.com/resources/blog/encryption/what-is-crypto-agility/