A comprehensive review of post-quantum cryptography: Challenges and advances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most crucial measures to maintain data security is the use of cryptography schemes and digital signatures built upon cryptographic algorithms. The resistance of cryptographic algorithms against conventional attacks is guaranteed by the computational difficulties and the immense amount of computation required to them. In the last decade, with the advances in quantum computing technology and the realization of quantum computers, which have higher computational power compared to conventional computers and can execute special kinds of algorithms (i.e., quantum algorithms), the security of many existing cryptographic algorithms has been questioned. The reason is that by using quantum computers and executing specific quantum algorithms through them, the computational difficulties of conventional cryptographic algorithms can be reduced, which makes it possible to overcome and break them in a relatively short period of time. Therefore, researchers began efforts to find new quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms that would be impossible to break, even using quantum computers, in a short time. Such algorithms are called post-quantum cryptographic algorithms. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the challenges and vulnerabilities of different kinds of conventional cryptographic algorithms against quantum computers. Afterward, we review the latest cryptographic algorithms and standards that have been proposed to confront the threats posed by quantum computers. We present the classification of post-quantum cryptographic algorithms and digital signatures based on their technical specifications, provide examples of each category, and outline the strengths and weaknesses of each category.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".