PQUIP A. Banerjee
Internet-Draft T. Reddy
Intended status: Informational D. Schoinianakis
Expires: 18 December 2023 Nokia
T. Hollebeek
DigiCert
16 June 2023
Post-Quantum Cryptography for Engineers
draft-ar-pquip-pqc-engineers-00
Abstract
The presence of a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC)
would render state-of-the-art, public-key cryptography deployed today
obsolete, since all the assumptions about the intractability of the
mathematical problems that offer confident levels of security today
no longer apply in the presence of a CRQC. This means there is a
requirement to update protocols and infrastructure to use post-
quantum algorithms, which are public-key algorithms designed to be
secure against CRQCs as well as classical computers. These
algorithms are just like previous public key algorithms, however the
intractable mathematical problems have been carefully chosen, so they
are hard for CRQCs as well as classical computers. This document
explains why engineers need to be aware of and understand post-
quantum cryptography. It emphasizes the potential impact of CRQCs on
current cryptographic systems and the need to transition to post-
quantum algorithms to ensure long-term security. The most important
thing to understand is that this transition is not like previous
transitions from DES to AES or from SHA-1 to SHA2, as the algorithm
properties are significantly different from classical algorithms, and
a drop-in replacement is not possible.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ar-pquip-pqc-engineers/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the pquip Working Group
mailing list (mailto:pquip@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pquip/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pquip/.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 December 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Contributing to This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Traditional Cryptographic Primitives that Could Be Replaced by
PQC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Invariants of Post-Quantum Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. NIST PQC Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. NIST finalists for standardization . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1.1. PQC Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs) . . . . . . . 6
6.1.2. PQC Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.3. Candidates advancing to the fourth-round for
standardization at NIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Threat of CRQCs on Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Symmetric cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Asymmetric cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
8. Timeline for transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Post-quantum cryptography categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Lattice-Based Public-Key Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Hash-Based Public-Key Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.3. Code-Based Public-Key Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. KEMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. What is a KEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. HPKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.3. Security properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. PQC Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. What is a Post-quantum Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. What security properties do they provide . . . . . . . . 12
11.3. Details of FALCON, Dilithium, and SPHINCS+ . . . . . . . 13
11.4. Hash-then-Sign Versus Sign-then-Hash . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Recommendations for Security / Performance Tradeoffs . . . . 14
13. Comparing PQC KEMs/Signatures vs Traditional KEMs
(KEXs)/Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14. Post-Quantum and Traditional Hybrid Schemes . . . . . . . . . 18
14.1. PQ/T Hybrid Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.2. PQ/T Hybrid Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
16. Further Reading & Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
16.1. Reading List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
16.2. Developer Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
Quantum computing is no longer perceived as a conjecture of
computational sciences and theoretical physics. Considerable
research efforts and enormous corporate and government funding for
the development of practical quantum computing systems are being
invested currently. For instance, Google’s announcement on achieving
quantum supremacy [Google], IBM’s latest 433-qubit processor Osprey
[IBM] or even Nokia Bell Labs' work on topological qubits [Nokia]
signify, among other outcomes, the accelerating efforts towards
large-scale quantum computers. At the time of writing the document,
Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers (CRQCs) that can break
widely used public-key cryptographic algorithms are not yet
available. However, it is worth noting that there is ongoing
research and development in the field of quantum computing, with the
goal of building more powerful and scalable quantum computers. As
quantum technology advances, there is the potential for future
quantum computers to have a significant impact on current
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
cryptographic systems. Forecasting the future is difficult, but the
general consensus is that such computers might arrive some time in
the 2030s, or might not arrive until 2050 or later.
Extensive research has produced several post-quantum cryptographic
algorithms that offer the potential to ensure cryptography's survival
in the quantum computing era. However, transitioning to a post-
quantum infrastructure is not a straightforward task, and there are
numerous challenges to overcome. It requires a combination of
engineering efforts, proactive assessment and evaluation of available
technologies, and a careful approach to product development. This
document aims to provide general guidance to engineers who utilize
public-key cryptography in their software. It covers topics such as
selecting appropriate post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms,
understanding the differences between PQC Key Encapsulation
Mechanisms (KEMs) and traditional Diffie-Hellman style key exchange,
and provides insights into expected key sizes and processing time
differences between PQC algorithms and traditional ones.
Additionally, it discusses the potential threat to symmetric
cryptography from Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers
(CRQCs). It is important to remember that asymmetric algorithms are
largely used for secure communications between organizations that may
not have previously interacted, so a significant amount of
coordination between organizations, and within and between ecosystems
needs to be taken into account. Such transitions are some of the
most complicated in the tech industry.
It is crucial for the reader to understand that when the word "PQC"
is mentioned in the document, it means Asymmetric Cryptography (or
Public key Cryptography) and not any algorithms from the Symmetric
side based on stream, block ciphers, etc. It does not cover such
topics as when traditional algorithms might become vulnerable (for
that, see documents such as [QC-DNS] and others). It also does not
cover unrelated technologies like Quantum Key Distribution or Quantum
Key Generation, which use quantum hardware to exploit quantum effects
to protect communications and generate keys, respectively. Post-
quantum cryptography is based on standard math and software and can
be run on any general purpose computer.
Please note: This document does not go into the deep mathematics of
the PQC algorithms, but rather provides an overview to engineers on
the current threat landscape and the relevant algorithms designed to
help prevent those threats.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Contributing to This Document
The guide was inspired by a thread in September 2022 on the
pqc@ietf.org (mailto:pqc@ietf.org) mailing list. The document is
being collaborated on through a GitHub repository
(https://github.com/tireddy2/pqc-for-engineers).
The editors actively encourage contributions to this document.
Please consider writing a section on a topic that you think is
missing. Short of that, writing a paragraph or two on an issue you
found when writing code that uses PQC would make this document more
useful to other coders. Opening issues that suggest new material is
fine too, but relying on others to write the first draft of such
material is much less likely to happen than if you take a stab at it
yourself.
4. Traditional Cryptographic Primitives that Could Be Replaced by PQC
Any asymmetric cryptographic algorithm based on integer
factorization, finite field discrete logarithms or elliptic curve
discrete logarithms will be vulnerable to attacks using Shor's
Algorithm on a sufficiently large general-purpose quantum computer,
known as a CRQC. This document focuses on the principal functions of
asymmetric cryptography:
* Key Agreement: Key Agreement schemes are used to establish a
shared cryptographic key for secure communication. They are one
of the mechanisms that can replaced by PQC, as this is based on
public key cryptography and is therefore vulnerable to the Shor's
algorithm. An CRQC can find the prime factors of the large public
key, which can used to derive the private key.
* Digital Signatures: Digital Signature schemes are used to
authenticate the identity of a sender, detect unauthorized
modifications to data and underpin trust in a system. Signatures,
similar to KEMs also depend on public-private key pair and hence a
break in public key cryptography will also affect traditional
digital signatures, hence the importance of developing post
quantum digital signatures.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
5. Invariants of Post-Quantum Cryptography
In the context of PQC, symmetric-key cryptographic algorithms are
generally not directly impacted by quantum computing advancements.
Symmetric-key cryptography, such as block ciphers (e.g., AES) and
hash functions (e.g., HMAC-SHA2), rely on secret keys shared between
the sender and receiver. HMAC is a specific construction that
utilizes a cryptographic hash function (such as SHA-2) and a secret
key shared between the sender and receiver to produce a message
authentication code. CRQCs, in theory, do not offer substantial
advantages in breaking symmetric-key algorithms compared to classical
computers (see Section 7.1 for more details).
6. NIST PQC Algorithms
In 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
started a process to solicit, evaluate, and standardize one or more
quantum-resistant public-key cryptographic algorithms, as seen here
(https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography). The
first set of algorithms for standardization
(https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/nistir/8413/final) were
selected in July 2022.
NIST announced as well that they will be opening a fourth round
(https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/post-quantum-
cryptography/documents/round-4/guidelines-for-submitting-tweaks-
fourth-round.pdf) to standardize an alternative KEM, and a call
(https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/pqc-dig-sig/documents/
call-for-proposals-dig-sig-sept-2022.pdf) for new candidates for a
post-quantum signature algorithm.
These algorithms are not a drop-in replacement for classical
asymmetric cryptographic algorithms. RSA and ECC can be used for
both key encapsulation and signatures, while for post-quantum
algorithms, a different algorithm is needed for each. When upgrading
protocols, it is important to replace the existing use of classical
algorithms with either a PQC key encapsulation method or a PQC
signature method, depending on how RSA and/or ECC was previously
being used.
6.1. NIST finalists for standardization
6.1.1. PQC Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs)
* CRYSTALS-Kyber (https://pq-crystals.org/kyber/): Kyber is a module
learning with errors (MLWE)-based key encapsulation mechanism.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
6.1.2. PQC Signatures
* CRYSTALS-Dilithium (https://pq-crystals.org/dilithium/)
* Falcon (https://falcon-sign.info/)
* SPHINCS+ (https://sphincs.org/)
6.1.3. Candidates advancing to the fourth-round for standardization at
NIST
The fourth-round of the NIST process only concerns with KEMs. The
candidates still advancing for standardization are:
* Classic McEliece (https://classic.mceliece.org/)
* BIKE (https://bikesuite.org/)
* HQC (http://pqc-hqc.org/)
* SIKE (https://sike.org/) (Broken): Supersingular Isogeny Key
Encapsulation (SIKE) is a specific realization of the SIDH
(Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman) protocol. Recently, a
mathematical attack (https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/975.pdf) based
on the "glue-and-split" theorem from 1997 from Ernst Kani was
found against the underlying chosen starting curve and torsion
information. In practical terms, this attack allows for the
efficient recovery of the private key. NIST announced that SIKE
was no longer under consideration, but the authors of SIKE had
asked for it to remain in the list so that people are aware that
it is broken.
7. Threat of CRQCs on Cryptography
Post-quantum cryptography or quantum-safe cryptography refers to
cryptographic algorithms that are secure against cryptographic
attacks from both CRQCs and classic computers.
When considering the security risks associated with the ability of a
quantum computer to attack traditional cryptography, it is important
to distinguish between the impact on symmetric algorithms and public-
key ones. Professor Peter Shor and computer scientist Lov Grover
developed two algorithms that changed the way the world thinks of
security under the presence of a CRQC.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
7.1. Symmetric cryptography
Grover's algorithm is a quantum search algorithm that provides a
theoretical quadratic speedup for searching an unstructured database
compared to classical algorithms. Grover’s algorithm theoretically
requires doubling the key sizes of the algorithms that one deploys
today to achieve quantum resistance. This is because Grover’s
algorithm reduces the amount of operations to break 128-bit symmetric
cryptography to 2^{64} quantum operations, which might sound
computationally feasible. However, 2^{64} operations performed in
parallel are feasible for modern classical computers, but 2^{64}
quantum operations performed serially in a quantum computer are not.
Grover's algorithm is highly non-parallelizable and even if one
deploys 2^c computational units in parallel to brute-force a key
using Grover's algorithm, it will complete in time proportional to
2^{(128−c)/2}, or, put simply, using 256 quantum computers will only
reduce runtime by 1/16, 1024 quantum computers will only reduce
runtime by 1/32 and so forth (see [NIST] and [Cloudflare]).
For unstructured data such as symmetric encrypted data or
cryptographic hashes, although CRQCs can search for specific
solutions across all possible input combinations (e.g., Grover's
Algorithm), no CRQCs is known to break the security properties of
these classes of algorithms.
How can someone be sure then that an improved algorithm won’t
outperform Grover's algorithm at some point in time? Christof Zalka
has shown that Grover's algorithm (and in particular its non-parallel
nature) achieves the best possible complexity for unstructured search
[Grover-search].
Finally, in their evaluation criteria for PQC, NIST is considering a
security level equivalent to that of AES-128, meaning that NIST has
confidence in standardizing parameters for PQC that offer similar
levels of security as AES-128 does [NIST]. As a result, 128-bit
algorithms should be considered quantum-safe for many years to come.
7.2. Asymmetric cryptography
“Shor’s algorithm†on the other side, efficiently solves the integer
factorization problem (and the related discrete logarithm problem),
which offer the foundations of the public-key cryptography that the
world uses today. This implies that, if a CRQC is developed, today’s
public-key cryptography algorithms (e.g., RSA, Diffie-Hellman and
Elliptic Curve Cryptography - ECC) and the accompanying digital
signatures schemes and protocols would need to be replaced by
algorithms and protocols that can offer cryptanalytic resistance
against CRQCs. Note that Shor’s algorithm doesn’t run on any classic
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
computer, it needs a CRQC.
For structured data such as public-key and signatures, instead, CRQCs
can fully solve the underlying hard problems used in classic
cryptography (see Shor's Algorithm). Because an increase of the size
of the key-pair would not provide a secure solution in this case, a
complete replacement of the algorithm is needed. Therefore, post-
quantum public-key cryptography must rely on problems that are
different from the ones used in classic public-key cryptography
(i.e., the integer factorization problem, the finite-field discrete
logarithm problem, and the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm
problem).
8. Timeline for transition
A malicious actor with adequate resources can launch an attack to
store sensitive encrypted data today that can be decrypted once a
CRQC is available. This implies that, every day, sensitive encrypted
data is susceptible to the attack by not implementing quantum-safe
strategies, as it corresponds to data being deciphered in the future.
+------------------------+----------------------------+
| | |
| y | x |
+------------------------+----------+-----------------+
| |
| z |
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 1: Mosca model
These challenges are illustrated nicely by the so called Mosca model
discussed in [Threat-Report]. In the Figure 1, "x" denotes the time
that our systems and data need to remain secure, "y" the number of
years to migrate to a PQC infrastructure and "z" the time until a
CRQC that can break current cryptography is available. The model
assumes that encrypted data can be intercepted and stored before the
migration is completed in "y" years. This data remains vulnerable
for the complete "x" years of their lifetime, thus the sum "x+y"
gives us an estimate of the full timeframe that data remain insecure.
The model essentially asks how are we preparing our IT systems during
those "y" years (or in other words, how can one minimize those "y"
years) to minimize the transition phase to a PQC infrastructure and
hence minimize the risks of data being exposed in the future.
Finally, other factors that could accelerate the introduction of a
CRQC should not be under-estimated, like for example faster-than-
expected advances in quantum computing and more efficient versions of
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
Shor’s algorithm requiring less qubits. As an example, IBM, one of
the leading actors in the development of a large-scale quantum
computer, has recently published a roadmap committing to new quantum
processors supporting more than 1000 qubits by 2025 and networked
systems with 10k-100k qubits beyond 2026 [IBMRoadmap]. Innovation
often comes in waves, so it is to the industry’s benefit to remain
vigilant and prepare as early as possible.
9. Post-quantum cryptography categories
The current set of problems used in post-quantum cryptography can be
currently grouped into three different categories: lattice-based,
hash-based and code-based.
9.1. Lattice-Based Public-Key Cryptography
Lattice-based public-key cryptography leverages the simple
construction of lattices (i.e., a regular collection of points in a
Euclidean space that are regularly spaced) to build problems that are
hard to solve such as the Shortest Vector or Closes Vector Problem,
Learning with Errors, and Learning with Rounding. All these problems
have good proof for worst-to-average case reduction, thus equating
the hardness of the average case to the worst-case.
The possibility to implement public-key schemes on lattices is tied
to the characteristics of the basis used for the lattice. In
particular, solving any of the mentioned problems can be easy when
using reduced or "good" basis (i.e., as short as possible and as
orthogonal as possible), while it becomes computationally infeasible
when using "bad" basis (i.e., long vectors not orthogonal). Although
the problem might seem trivial, it is computationally hard when
considering many dimensions. Therefore, a typical approach is to use
"bad" basis for public keys and "good" basis for private keys. The
public keys ("bad" basis) let you easily verify signatures by
checking, for example, that a vector is the closest or smallest, but
do not let you solve the problem (i.e., finding the vector).
Conversely, private keys (i.e., the "good" basis) can be used for
generating the signatures (e.g., finding the specific vector).
Signing is equivalent to solving the lattice problem.
Lattice-based schemes usually have good performances and average size
public keys and signatures, making them good candidates for general-
purpose use such as replacing the use of RSA in PKIX certificates.
Examples of such class of algorithms include Kyber, Falcon and
Dilithium.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
9.2. Hash-Based Public-Key Cryptography
Hash based PKC has been around since the 70s, developed by Lamport
and Merkle which creates a digital signature algorithm and its
security is mathematically based on the security of the selected
cryptographic hash function. Many variants of hash based signatures
have been developed since the 70s including the recent XMSS, LMS or
BPQS schemes. Unlike digital signature techniques, most hash-based
signature schemes are stateful, which means that signing necessitates
the update of the secret key.
SPHINCS on the other hand leverages the HORS (Hash to Obtain Random
Subset) technique and remains the only hash based signature scheme
that is stateless.
SPHINCS+ is an advancement on SPHINCS which reduces the signature
sizes in SPHINCS and makes it more compact. SPHINCS+ was recently
standardized by NIST.
9.3. Code-Based Public-Key Cryptography
This area of cryptography stemmed in the 1970s and 80s based on the
seminal work of McEliece and Niederreiter which focuses on the study
of cryptosystems based on error-correcting codes. Some popular error
correcting codes include the Goppa codes (used in McEliece
cryptosystems), encoding and decoding syndrome codes used in Hamming
Quasi-Cyclic (HQC) or Quasi-cyclic Moderate density parity check (QC-
MDPC) codes.
Examples include all the NIST Round 4 (unbroken) finalists: Classic
McEliece, HQC, BIKE.
10. KEMs
10.1. What is a KEM
Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) is a cryptographic technique used
for securely exchanging symmetric keys between two parties over an
insecure channel. It is commonly used in hybrid encryption schemes,
where a combination of asymmetric (public-key) and symmetric
encryption is employed. The sender uses the symmetric key to encrypt
the message first, following which the public key of the receiver is
used to encrypt the symmetric key. The receiver then first decrypts
the ciphertext using the private key to gain the symmetric key,
finally that symmetric key is leveraged to decrypt the ciphertext.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
It is, however, essential to note that PQ KEMs are interactive in
nature because the sender's actions are dependent on the receiver's
public key and unlike Diffie-Hellman (DH) Key exchange (KEX) which
provides non-interactive key exchange (NIKE) property.
10.2. HPKE
HPKE (Hybrid public key encryption) [RFC9180] deals with a variant of
KEM which is essentially a PKE of arbitrary sized plaintexts for a
recipient public key. It works with a combination of KEMs, KDFs and
AEAD schemes (Authenticated Encryption with Additional Data). HPKE
includes three authenticated variants, including one that
authenticates possession of a pre-shared key and two optional ones
that authenticate possession of a key encapsulation mechanism (KEM)
private key. Kyber, which is a KEM does not support the static-
ephemeral key exchange that allows HPKE based on DH based KEMs its
(optional) authenticated modes as discussed in Section 1.2 of
[I-D.westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02].
10.3. Security properties
* IND-CCA2 : Kyber, Classic McEliece, Saber all provide IND-CCA2
security. IND-CCA2 (INDistinguishability under Chosen-Ciphertext
Attack, version 2) is an advanced security notion for encryption
schemes. It ensures the confidentiality of the plaintext,
resistance against chosen-ciphertext attacks, and prevents the
adversary from forging new ciphertexts.
11. PQC Signatures
11.1. What is a Post-quantum Signature
Any digital signature scheme that provides a construction defining
security under post quantum setting falls under this category of PQ
signatures.
11.2. What security properties do they provide
* EUF-CMA : Dilithium, Falcon all provide EUF-CMA security. EUF-CMA
(Existential Unforgeability under Chosen Message Attack) is a
security notion for digital signature schemes. It guarantees that
an adversary, even with access to a signing oracle, cannot forge a
valid signature for an unknown message. EUF-CMA provides strong
protection against forgery attacks, ensuring the integrity and
authenticity of digital signatures by preventing unauthorized
modifications or fraudulent signatures.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
11.3. Details of FALCON, Dilithium, and SPHINCS+
Dilithium [Dilithium] is a digital signature algorithm (part of the
CRYSTALS suite) based on the hardness lattice problems over module
lattices (i.e., the Module Learning with Errors problem(MLWE)). The
design of the algorithm is based on Fiat Shamir with Abort method
that leverages rejection sampling to render lattice based FS schemes
compact and secure. Additionally, Dilithium offers both
deterministic and randomized signing. Security properties of
Dilithium are discussed in Section 9 of
[I-D.ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates].
Falcon [Falcon] is based on the GPV hash-and-sign lattice-based
signature framework introduced by Gentry, Peikert and Vaikuntanathan,
which is a framework that requires a class of lattices and a trapdoor
sampler technique.
The main design principle of Falcon is compactness, i.e. it was
designed in a way that achieves minimal total memory bandwidth
requirement (the sum of the signature size plus the public key size).
This is possible due to the compactness of NTRU lattices. Falcon
also offers very efficient signing and verification procedures. The
main potential downsides of Falcon refer to the non-triviality of its
algorithms and the need for floating point arithmetic support.
Access to a robust floating-point stack in Falcon is essential for
accurate, efficient, and secure execution of the mathematical
computations involved in the scheme. It helps maintain precision,
supports error correction techniques, and contributes to the overall
reliability and performance of Falcon's cryptographic operations.
The performance characteristics of Dilithium and Falcon may differ
based on the specific implementation and hardware platform.
Generally, Dilithium is known for its relatively fast signature
generation, while Falcon can provide more efficient signature
verification. The choice may depend on whether the application
requires more frequent signature generation or signature
verification. For further clarity, please refer to the tables in
sections Section 12 and Section 13.
Sphincs+ utilizes the concept of stateless hash-based signatures,
where each signature is unique and unrelated to any previous
signature (as discussed in Section 9.2). This property eliminates
the need for maintaining state information during the signing
process. Other hash-based signature algorithms are stateful,
including HSS/LMS [RFC8554] and XMSS [RFC8391]. SPHINCS+ offers
three security levels. The parameters for each of the security
levels were chosen to provide 128 bits of security, 192 bits of
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
security, and 256 bits of security. Sphincs+ offers smaller key
sizes, larger signature sizes, slower signature generation, and
slower verification when compared to Dilithium and Falcon. Hence,
when one wants to choose an algorithm which offers significantly
smaller private and public key sizes, Sphincs+ provides a better
solution.
11.4. Hash-then-Sign Versus Sign-then-Hash
Within the hash-then-sign paradigm, the message is hashed before
signing it. Hashing the message before signing it provides an
additional layer of security by ensuring that only a fixed-size
digest of the message is signed, rather than the entire message
itself. By pre-hashing, the onus of resistance to existential
forgeries becomes heavily reliant on the collision-resistance of the
hash function in use. As well as this security goal, the hash-then-
sign paradigm also has the ability to improve performance by reducing
the size of signed messages. As a corollary, hashing remains
mandatory even for short messages and assigns a further computational
requirement onto the verifier. This makes the performance of hash-
then-sign schemes more consistent, but not necessarily more
efficient. Using a hash function to produce a fixed-size digest of a
message ensures that the signature is compatible with a wide range of
systems and protocols, regardless of the specific message size or
format. Hash-then-Sign also greatly reduces the amount of data that
needs to be processed by a hardware security module, which sometimes
have somewhat limited data processing capabilities.
In the case of Dilithium, it internally incorporates the necessary
hash operations as part of its signing algorithm. Dilithium directly
takes the original message, applies a hash function internally, and
then uses the resulting hash value for the signature generation
process. Therefore, the hash-then-sign paradigm is not needed to
Dilithium, as it already incorporates hashing within its signing
mechanism.
12. Recommendations for Security / Performance Tradeoffs
The table below denotes the 5 security levels provided by NIST
required for PQC algorithms. Users can leverage the required
algorithm based on the security level based on their use case. The
security is defined as a function of resources required to break AES
and SHA3 algorithms, i.e., optimal key recovery for AES and optimal
collision attacks for SHA3.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
+==========+=======================+========================+
| Security | AES/SHA3 hardness | PQC Algorithm |
| Level | | |
+==========+=======================+========================+
| 1 | Find optimal key in | Kyber512, Falcon512, |
| | AES-128 | Sphincs+SHA256 128f/s |
+----------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| 2 | Find optimal | Dilithium2 |
| | collision in SHA3-256 | |
+----------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| 3 | Find optimal key in | Kyber768, Dilithium3, |
| | AES-192 | Sphincs+SHA256 192f/s |
+----------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| 4 | Find optimal | No algorithm tested at |
| | collision in SHA3-384 | this level |
+----------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| 5 | Find optimal key in | Kyber1024, Falcon1024, |
| | AES-256 | Dilithium5, |
| | | Sphincs+SHA256 256f/s |
+----------+-----------------------+------------------------+
Table 1
Please note the Sphincs+SHA256 x"f/s" in the above table denotes
whether its the Sphincs+ fast (f) version or small (s) version for
"x" bit AES security level. Refer to
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-02] for further details on Sphincs+
algorithms.
The following table discusses the impact of performance on different
security levels in terms of private key sizes, public key sizes and
ciphertext/signature sizes.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
+==========+============+============+============+================+
| Security | Algorithm | Public key | Private | Ciphertext/ |
| Level | | size (in | key size | Signature size |
| | | bytes) | (in bytes) | (in bytes) |
+==========+============+============+============+================+
| 1 | Kyber512 | 800 | 1632 | 768 |
+----------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| 2 | Dilithium2 | 1312 | 2528 | 2420 |
+----------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| 3 | Kyber768 | 1184 | 2400 | 1088 |
+----------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| 5 | Falcon1024 | 1793 | 2305 | 1330 |
+----------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| 5 | Kyber1024 | 1568 | 3168 | 1588 |
+----------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
Table 2
13. Comparing PQC KEMs/Signatures vs Traditional KEMs (KEXs)/Signatures
In this section, we provide two tables for comparison of different
KEMs and Signatures respectively, in the traditional and Post
scenarios. These tables will focus on the secret key sizes, public
key sizes, and ciphertext/signature sizes for the PQC algorithms and
their traditional counterparts of similar security levels.
The first table compares traditional vs. PQC KEMs in terms of
security, public, private key sizes, and ciphertext sizes.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
+==========+====================+==========+==========+============+
| PQ | Algorithm | Public | Private | Ciphertext |
| Security | | key size | key size | size (in |
| Level | | (in | (in | bytes) |
| | | bytes) | bytes) | |
+==========+====================+==========+==========+============+
| 1 | Kyber512 | 800 | 1632 | 768 |
+----------+--------------------+----------+----------+------------+
| 0 | P256_HKDF_SHA256 | 65 | 32 | 65 |
+----------+--------------------+----------+----------+------------+
| 3 | Kyber768 | 1184 | 2400 | 1088 |
+----------+--------------------+----------+----------+------------+
| 0 | P521_HKDF_SHA512 | 133 | 66 | 133 |
+----------+--------------------+----------+----------+------------+
| 5 | Kyber1024 | 1568 | 3168 | 1588 |
+----------+--------------------+----------+----------+------------+
| 0 | X25519_HKDF_SHA256 | 32 | 32 | 32 |
+----------+--------------------+----------+----------+------------+
Table 3
The next table compares traditional vs. PQC Signature schemes in
terms of security, public, private key sizes, and signature sizes.
+=============+============+============+============+===========+
| PQ Security | Algorithm | Public key | Private | Signature |
| Level | | size (in | key size | size (in |
| | | bytes) | (in bytes) | bytes) |
+=============+============+============+============+===========+
| 2 | Dilithium2 | 1312 | 2528 | 768 |
+-------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 0 | RSA2048 | 256 | 256 | 256 |
+-------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 3 | Dilithium3 | 1952 | 4000 | 3293 |
+-------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 0 | P256 | 64 | 32 | 64 |
+-------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 5 | Falcon1024 | 1793 | 2305 | 1330 |
+-------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
Table 4
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
As one can clearly observe from the above tables, leveraging a PQC
KEM/Signature significantly increases the key sizes and the
ciphertext/signature sizes as well as compared to traditional
KEM(KEX)/Signatures. But the PQC algorithms do provide the
additional security level in case there is an attack from a CRQC,
whereas schemes based on prime factorization or discrete logarithm
problems (finite field or elliptic curves) would provide no level of
security at all against such attacks.
14. Post-Quantum and Traditional Hybrid Schemes
The migration to PQC is unique in the history of modern digital
cryptography in that neither the traditional algorithms nor the post-
quantum algorithms are fully trusted to protect data for the required
lifetimes. The traditional algorithms, such as RSA and elliptic
curve, will fall to quantum cryptalanysis, while the post-quantum
algorithms face uncertainty about the underlying mathematics,
compliance issues, unknown vulnerabilities, and hardware and software
implementations that have not had sufficient maturing time to rule
out classical cryptanalytic attacks and implementation bugs.
During the transition from traditional to post-quantum algorithms,
there may be a desire or a requirement for protocols that use both
algorithm types. [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology] defines the
terminology for the Post-Quantum and Traditional Hybrid Schemes.
14.1. PQ/T Hybrid Confidentiality
The PQ/T Hybrid Confidentiality property can be used to protect from
a "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attack, which refers to an attacker
collecting encrypted data now and waiting for quantum computers to
become powerful enough to break the encryption later. For example,
in [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design], the client uses the TLS supported
groups extension to advertise support for a PQ/T hybrid scheme, and
the server can select this group if it supports the scheme. The
hybrid-aware client and server establish a hybrid secret by
concatenating the two shared secrets, which is used as the shared
secret in the existing TLS 1.3 key schedule.
14.2. PQ/T Hybrid Authentication
The PQ/T Hybrid Authentication property can be utilized in scenarios
where an on-path attacker possesses network devices equipped with
CRQCs, capable of breaking traditional authentication protocols.
This property ensures authentication through a PQ/T hybrid scheme or
a PQ/T hybrid protocol, as long as at least one component algorithm
remains secure to provide the intended security level. For instance,
a PQ/T hybrid certificate can be employed to facilitate a PQ/T hybrid
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
authentication protocol. However, a PQ/T hybrid authentication
protocol does not need to use a PQ/T hybrid certificate
[I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-keys]; separate certificates could be
used for individual component algorithms
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth].
The frequency and duration of system upgrades and the time when CRQCs
will become widely available need to be weighed in to determine
whether and when to support the PQ/T Hybrid Authentication property.
15. Security Considerations
Several PQC schemes are available that need to be tested;
cryptography experts around the world are pushing for the best
possible solutions, and the first standards that will ease the
introduction of PQC are being prepared. It is of paramount
importance and a call for imminent action for organizations, bodies,
and enterprises to start evaluating their cryptographic agility,
assess the complexity of implementing PQC into their products,
processes, and systems, and develop a migration plan that achieves
their security goals to the best possible extent.
16. Further Reading & Resources
16.1. Reading List
(A reading list. Serious Cryptography (https://nostarch.com/
seriouscrypto). Pointers to PQC sites with good explanations. List
of reasonable Wikipedia pages.)
16.2. Developer Resources
* Open Quantum Safe (https://openquantumsafe.org/) and corresponding
github (https://github.com/open-quantum-safe)
Acknowledgements
It leverages text from https://github.com/paulehoffman/post-quantum-
for-engineers/blob/main/pqc-for-engineers.md. Thanks to Dan Wing and
Florence D for the discussion and comments.
References
Normative References
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8391] Huelsing, A., Butin, D., Gazdag, S., Rijneveld, J., and A.
Mohaisen, "XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme",
RFC 8391, DOI 10.17487/RFC8391, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8391>.
[RFC8554] McGrew, D., Curcio, M., and S. Fluhrer, "Leighton-Micali
Hash-Based Signatures", RFC 8554, DOI 10.17487/RFC8554,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8554>.
Informative References
[Cloudflare]
"NIST’s pleasant post-quantum surprise",
<https://blog.cloudflare.com/nist-post-quantum-surprise/>.
[Dilithium]
"Cryptographic Suite for Algebraic Lattices (CRYSTALS) -
Dilithium",
<https://pq-crystals.org/dilithium/index.shtml>.
[Falcon] "Fast Fourier lattice-based compact signatures over NTRU",
<https://falcon-sign.info/>.
[Google] "Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting
Processor", <https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/10/quantum-
supremacy-using-programmable.html>.
[Grover-search]
"C. Zalka, “Grover’s quantum searching algorithm is
optimal,†Physical Review A, vol. 60, pp. 2746-2751,
1999.".
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth]
Becker, A., Guthrie, R., and M. J. Jenkins, "Related
Certificates for Use in Multiple Authentications within a
Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-00, 24 February 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-
cert-binding-for-multi-auth-00>.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-02]
Housley, R., Fluhrer, S., Kampanakis, P., and B.
Westerbaan, "Use of the SPHINCS+ Signature Algorithm in
the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-02, 17
May 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-02>.
[I-D.ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates]
Massimo, J., Kampanakis, P., Turner, S., and B.
Westerbaan, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure:
Algorithm Identifiers for Dilithium", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates-
01, 6 February 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-
dilithium-certificates-01>.
[I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology]
D, F., "Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid
Schemes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-00, 4 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pquip-
pqt-hybrid-terminology-00>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]
Stebila, D., Fluhrer, S., and S. Gueron, "Hybrid key
exchange in TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-06, 27 February 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
hybrid-design-06>.
[I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-keys]
Ounsworth, M., Gray, J., Pala, M., and J. Klaußner,
"Composite Public and Private Keys For Use In Internet
PKI", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ounsworth-
pq-composite-keys-05, 29 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ounsworth-pq-
composite-keys-05>.
[I-D.westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02]
Westerbaan, B. and C. A. Wood, "X25519Kyber768Draft00
hybrid post-quantum KEM for HPKE", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02,
4 May 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02>.
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
[IBM] "IBM Unveils 400 Qubit-Plus Quantum Processor and Next-
Generation IBM Quantum System Two",
<https://newsroom.ibm.com/2022-11-09-IBM-Unveils-400-
Qubit-Plus-Quantum-Processor-and-Next-Generation-IBM-
Quantum-System-Two>.
[IBMRoadmap]
"The IBM Quantum Development Roadmap",
<https://www.ibm.com/quantum/roadmap>.
[NIST] "Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization",
<https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography/
post-quantum-cryptography-standardization>.
[Nokia] "Interference Measurements of Non-Abelian e/4 & Abelian
e/2 Quasiparticle Braiding",
<https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/
PhysRevX.13.011028>.
[QC-DNS] "Quantum Computing and the DNS",
<https://www.icann.org/octo-031-en.pdf>.
[RFC9180] Barnes, R., Bhargavan, K., Lipp, B., and C. Wood, "Hybrid
Public Key Encryption", RFC 9180, DOI 10.17487/RFC9180,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9180>.
[Threat-Report]
"Quantum Threat Timeline Report 2020",
<https://globalriskinstitute.org/publications/quantum-
threat-timeline-report-2020/>.
Authors' Addresses
Aritra Banerjee
Nokia
Munich
Germany
Email: aritra.banerjee@nokia.com
Tirumaleswar Reddy
Nokia
Bangalore
Karnataka
India
Email: kondtir@gmail.com
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PQC for Engineers June 2023
Dimitrios Schoinianakis
Nokia
Athens
Greece
Email: dimitrios.schoinianakis@nokia-bell-labs.com
Timothy Hollebeek
DigiCert
Pittsburgh,
United States of America
Email: tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Banerjee, et al. Expires 18 December 2023 [Page 23]