DragBin - Secure Cloud Storage and Sharing

Encryption is the quiet perimeter protecting finance, healthcare, IP and private life. For decades the hardness assumptions behind RSA, ECC and related primitives gave us confidence that ciphertext harvested today would remain opaque tomorrow. Quantum computing converts that comfortable extrapolation into a countdown. Nation‑state adversaries are already stockpiling traffic (Harvest Now, Decrypt Later) betting on a future cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) to peel away today’s public‑key protection. This guide distills the threat, the algorithms (Shor & Grover), realistic timelines, NIST’s 2024–2025 post‑quantum (PQC) standards and the architectural traits a file storage platform must exhibit to remain trustworthy through the transition.

Classical Foundations: Symmetric + Asymmetric Hybrid

Modern secure channels are engineered hybrids: (1) A fast symmetric cipher (AES‑GCM / ChaCha20‑Poly1305) protects bulk payloads; (2) A public‑key primitive (RSA or ECC) bootstraps a shared secret (key exchange + authentication); (3) The symmetric key is short‑lived (forward secrecy in robust designs) and discarded. The performance/security bargain works only so long as the asymmetric step remains unbroken—compromise it and the attacker recovers the symmetric session key plus any wrapped data encryption keys (DEKs).

Two Pillars Today

Symmetric Encryption (AES‑256)

Fast, bulk confidentiality + integrity (AEAD). Grover only yields quadratic speedup; AES‑256 retains ~128 bits post‑quantum effective security.

Asymmetric Encryption / Signatures

RSA / ECC rely on integer factorization & discrete logarithms. Shor provides exponential speedup, collapsing their security once a CRQC arrives.

Hybrid Model

Public‑key step establishes/encapsulates a fresh symmetric key; thereafter only high‑performance symmetric ops are used.

Single Point of Failure

Break the asymmetric bootstrap and historical captured sessions (without forward secrecy) can be decrypted.

Quantum Computing: Why It Changes the Risk Curve

Quantum machines leverage superposition (state space explosion), entanglement (correlated computation) and interference (amplitude steering) to explore structured mathematical landscapes unreachable to classical hardware. While error correction, qubit fidelity and scaling remain engineering hurdles, the *class* of problems impacted includes exactly those underpinning legacy public‑key cryptography.

Quantum Principles (At Security-Relevant Level)

Superposition

Represents many basis states simultaneously—enables parallel evaluation of structured functions.

Entanglement

Correlated qubits encode global relationships exploited by period‑finding (Shor).

Interference

Algorithmic orchestration amplifies correct solution paths (e.g., period) while cancelling noise.

Decoherence Challenge

Fragile states require heavy error correction overhead; timeline uncertainty persists but risk is cumulative today.

Quantum Attack Surface: Shor vs Grover

Quantum threat is asymmetric. Shor devastates trapdoor discrete log / factorization schemes (RSA, Diffie‑Hellman, ECC). Grover offers only a quadratic brute‑force advantage against symmetric ciphers & hashes. Result: Public‑key must be *replaced*; symmetric primitives mainly need longer keys already in deployment (AES‑256).

Algorithm Impact Summary

Shor's Algorithm

Exponential speedup for factoring / discrete log ⇒ RSA/ECC signatures, key exchange broken; no parameter stretch rescue.

Grover's Algorithm

Quadratic search speedup halves effective key length; AES‑128 → ~64‑bit security (insufficient); AES‑256 → ~128‑bit (acceptable).

Hash Functions

Grover reduces preimage cost from 2^n to 2^{n/2}; choose 256‑bit outputs (SHA‑256 / SHA‑512 truncated) for margin.

Forward Secrecy Importance

Ephemeral key exchanges limit retrospective decryption of harvested traffic once PQ break occurs.

Harvest Now, Decrypt Later (HNDL) Reality

Adversaries intercept and archive encrypted payloads today (VPN, TLS, file sync) expecting future PQ decryption of the asymmetric layer to expose historical symmetric keys. Any dataset requiring confidentiality lifetime (X) beyond (Z − Y) where Z = CRQC arrival estimate and Y = migration duration is already at risk (Mosca's inequality). Long‑lived IP, health, defense & personal archives qualify now.

Timeline & Risk Framing

Estimates for a cryptographically relevant quantum computer vary (≈2030–2045 plausible window; conservative outliers later). Engineering breakthroughs can compress forecasts suddenly. Migration of large estates (inventory → design → implementation → validation → rollout) frequently spans 3–7 years. Waiting for certainty guarantees overlap exposure for long‑lived secrets.

Global PQC Standardization (NIST 2024–2025)

NIST selected diversified lattice + hash + code‑based portfolio: ML‑KEM (Kyber) for key establishment, ML‑DSA (Dilithium) for signatures, SPHINCS+ (hash‑based) as conservative backup, HQC (code‑based) progressing as secondary KEM. Diversity reduces monoculture systemic risk observed with RSA/ECC dominance.

First-Wave PQC Standards

ML-KEM (Kyber / FIPS 203)

Primary KEM: performance + small artifacts; lattice hardness.

ML-DSA (Dilithium / FIPS 204)

Primary signatures: balance of size & speed; lattice based.

SPHINCS+ (FIPS 205)

Hash-based fallback: larger signatures, extremely conservative assumptions.

HQC (Draft Backup)

Code-based KEM diversity hedge (under standardization).

Quantum-Ready File Storage: Required Properties

Claiming “quantum-safe” demands architectural evidence, not marketing. Core pillars: crypto‑agility, hybrid KEM deployment, comprehensive PQ coverage (transport, authentication, key wrapping), enforced forward secrecy, robust key hierarchy isolation, and transparent migration telemetry.

Essential Capabilities

Crypto-Agility

Pluggable abstraction enabling rapid swap / parallel rollout of new KEMs & signature suites without data format rewrite.

Hybrid Exchanges

Combine classical X25519 (or existing ECDH) with ML-KEM → derive session key from concatenated secrets (defense in depth).

Comprehensive PQ Coverage

Apply PQ KEM to session establishment, PQ signatures to server auth, PQ derivation for KEK that wraps per-object DEKs.

Forward Secrecy

Ephemeral (rotating) hybrid exchanges prevent retrospective mass decryption of harvested traffic.

**Operational Requirements**: Inventory cryptographic surfaces; classify data by confidentiality lifetime.
**Key Hierarchy Hygiene**: Per-object DEKs wrapped by KEK derived via hybrid PQ handshake; rotate KEK on algorithm upgrade.
**Algorithm Agility Testing**: Canary deployments with parallel signature/KEM to detect regressions early.
**Attestation & Logging**: Signed metadata proving which algorithm set protected each object (audit & liability clarity).
**User Communication**: Plain-language disclosure of migration phases & fallback triggers.

DragBin Approach

DragBin implements hybrid (X25519 + Kyber / ML-KEM roadmap) for key establishment, AES-256-GCM for content, Argon2id for key hardening, granular per-file key wrapping and forward secrecy session rotation. Crypto‑agility layers isolate algorithm identifiers permitting seamless adoption of updated FIPS profiles or backup KEM/signature insertion without re-encrypting stored ciphertext.

Quantum Encryption FAQ

When will quantum break RSA-2048?

Exact year unknown; credible probability within 2030s–2040s. Risk planning uses data lifetime + migration duration > conservative earliest arrival.

Is AES-256 quantum-safe?

Grover reduces effective strength to ~128 bits which remains robust; prefer AES-256 over AES-128 for margin.

What is Harvest Now, Decrypt Later?

Adversaries intercept & store ciphertext today intending future PQ decryption of its public-key layer to recover symmetric keys.

Why hybrid now?

Combines mature classical assurance with PQ resilience; security at least the stronger side pending further cryptanalysis.

What is crypto-agility?

Design principle enabling rapid, low-risk substitution or parallel deployment of cryptographic primitives (algorithms, parameters) without data format migration.

Conclusion

Quantum computing reframes cryptographic assurance timelines: the threat is not a distant Q-Day singularity but present exposure through harvest-and-hold campaigns. Public-key primitives face mandatory replacement; symmetric ciphers need parameter prudence. NIST PQC standards supply the raw materials—platforms must supply agility, hybrid defense, forward secrecy and verifiable deployment metadata. Selecting storage that evidences these properties today prevents an emergency retrofit tomorrow.

The Quantum Countdown: How Quantum Computers Threaten Your Encrypted Data (2025 Guide)

Table of Contents