FIPS Compliant Quantum Secure Communication Using Quantum Permutation Pad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum computing has entered a fast development track since Shor's algorithm was proposed in 1994. Multi-cloud services of quantum computing farms are currently available. One of which, IBM quantum computing, presented a road map showing their Kookaburra system with over 4158 qubits that will be available in 2025. For the standardization of Post-Quantum Cryptography or PQC, the National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST recently announced the first candidates for standardization with one algorithm for key encapsulation mechanism (KEM), Kyber, and three algorithms for digital signatures. NIST has also issued a new call for quantum-safe digital signature algorithms due June 1, 2023. This timeline shows that FIPS-certified quantum-safe TLS protocol would take a predictably long time. However, 'steal now, crack later’ tactic requires protecting data against future quantum threat actors today. NIST recommended the use of a hybrid mode of TLS 1.3 with its extensions to support PQC. The hybrid mode works for certain cases but FIPS certification for the hybridized cryptomodule might still be required. This paper proposes to take a nested mode to enable TLS 1.3 protocol with quantum-safe data, which can be made available today and is FIPS compliant. We discussed the performance impacts of the handshaking phase of the nested TLS 1.3 with PQC and the symmetric encryption phase. The major impact on performance using the nested mode is in the data symmetric encryption with AES. To overcome this performance reduction, we suggest using quantum encryption with a quantum permutation pad for data encryption with a minor performance reduction of less than 10%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".