Evaluation Framework for Quantum Security Risk Assessment: A Comprehensive Strategy for Quantum-Safe Transition

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2404.08231
• Title: Evaluation Framework for Quantum Security Risk Assessment: A Comprehensive Strategy for Quantum-Safe Transition
• Authors: Yaser Baseri (Université de Montréal), Vikas Chouhan (University of New Brunswick), Ali Ghorbani (University of New Brunswick), Aaron Chow (Scotiabank)
• Classification: cs.CR (Cryptography and Security)
• Publication Date: November 18, 2024 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08231

Abstract

The emergence of large-scale quantum computing poses a significant threat to traditional cryptographic security measures. Quantum attacks compromise current asymmetric cryptographic algorithms, rendering them ineffective. Even symmetric-key cryptography is vulnerable to attack, albeit to a lesser degree, requiring longer keys or extended hash functions to ensure security. Consequently, current cryptographic solutions cannot adequately address emerging quantum threats. Organizations must transition to quantum-safe environments, developing robust continuity plans and sophisticated risk management strategies. This research explores the challenges of migrating to quantum-safe cryptographic states and introduces a comprehensive security risk assessment framework. We propose a security risk assessment framework that examines vulnerabilities at the algorithmic, certificate, and protocol levels throughout the migration process (pre-migration, during-migration, and post-migration phases). We correlate these vulnerabilities with the STRIDE threat model to assess their impact and likelihood. Subsequently, we discuss practical mitigation strategies targeting critical components including algorithms, public key infrastructure, and protocols.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The development of quantum computing poses an unprecedented threat to existing cryptographic systems:

1. Vulnerability of Asymmetric Cryptographic Algorithms: Shor's algorithm can efficiently compute private keys from public keys, rendering algorithms based on RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and elliptic curve cryptography vulnerable.
2. Weakening of Symmetric Cryptographic Algorithms: Grover's algorithm reduces the security strength of symmetric key algorithms by half. AES-128 provides only 64-bit security in a quantum environment.
3. Threat to Hash Functions: The Brassard-Hoyer-Tapp (BHT) algorithm reduces the effective security strength of hash functions to one-third of their output size.

Research Significance

1. Urgency: According to expert opinion surveys, the probability of quantum threats emerging within 15 years is moderate, and within 20 years is high.
2. Broad Impact: Affects multiple domains including financial systems, critical infrastructure, and communication protocols.
3. Migration Complexity: Requires coordinated simultaneous upgrades at the algorithmic, certificate, and protocol levels.

Limitations of Existing Approaches

Through systematic analysis of related work (Table 1), existing research exhibits the following shortcomings:

• Lack of comprehensive risk assessment frameworks
• Most research focuses only on specific aspects of quantum threats
• Absence of systematic approaches covering the entire migration process
• Gap between theoretical analysis and practical deployment

Core Contributions

1. Comprehensive Threat Analysis: Provides in-depth analysis of quantum computing threats to algorithms, certificates, and protocols across all migration phases (pre-migration, during-migration, and post-migration).
2. STRIDE Threat Modeling: Systematically maps quantum-specific threats to the STRIDE threat model, with emphasis on the transition phase where classical and quantum-safe cryptographic systems coexist.
3. Risk Assessment Framework: Develops a structured quantum-specific risk assessment methodology covering different migration phases and organizational levels, with customized criteria for assessing likelihood and impact.
4. Practical Guidance: Proposes practical countermeasures at the algorithmic, protocol, and infrastructure levels, enabling organizations to strengthen their systems against quantum threats.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

The core objective of this research is to establish a comprehensive quantum security risk assessment framework that:

• Input: Organization's cryptographic infrastructure configuration, migration phase, threat environment
• Output: Structured risk assessment results, mitigation strategy recommendations
• Constraints: Compliance with NIST risk management standards, applicability to organizations of different sizes and types

Risk Assessment Methodology

NIST SP 800-30 Framework Adaptation

The research adopts the NIST SP 800-30 risk assessment methodology, comprising five core tasks:

1. Threat Source and Event Identification
2. Vulnerability and Precondition Identification
3. Likelihood Determination
4. Impact Determination
5. Risk Value Assessment

Likelihood Assessment Criteria (Table 2)

Employs a qualitative approach, categorizing likelihood into three levels:

• High: System exhibits severe security defects, known exploitable vulnerabilities, strong attacker motivation and capability
• Medium: System exhibits limited security defects, countermeasures exist but exploitation remains possible
• Low: No known security defects, exploitation requires administrative privileges

Impact Assessment Criteria (Table 3)

Similarly employs a qualitative approach:

• High: May result in loss of life, infrastructure damage, personal data loss, significant financial loss
• Medium: May result in real-time operation failure, limited infrastructure damage, significant customer satisfaction impact
• Low: May result in non-critical service delays or limited unavailability

STRIDE Threat Model Integration

Maps identified vulnerabilities to STRIDE threat categories:

• Spoofing: Identity forgery attacks
• Tampering: Data integrity compromise
• Repudiation: Denial of operations or transactions
• Information Disclosure: Confidential data exposure
• Denial of Service: Service availability attacks
• Elevation of Privilege: Unauthorized access

Three-Layer Analysis Framework

Algorithm-Level Analysis

Pre-Migration Phase

Quantum Threat Timeline Analysis:

• Based on expert survey data, calculates expected likelihood of quantum threats
• Within 5 years: 0.05, within 10 years: 0.22, within 15 years: 0.42, within 20 years: 0.63, within 30 years: 0.76

Classical Algorithm Vulnerability Assessment (Table 4):

• Asymmetric Algorithms: ECC, RSA, Diffie-Hellman completely compromised by Shor's algorithm
• Symmetric Algorithms: AES, SHA series security strength reduced by half
• Risk Levels: Most combinations rated as medium-to-high risk

During-Migration Phase

Hybrid Strategy Analysis (Table 5):

1. Hybrid KEM/ENC Strategy:
   • Concatenation method: Simple but lacks integrity protection
   • KDF method: Concat-KDF, Cascade-KDF, etc.
   • PRF method: Dual-PRF, Nested-Dual-PRF, etc.
   • XOR combination: Lightweight but carries security risks
2. Hybrid Signature Strategy:
   • Concatenation: Maintains unforgeability but does not support non-separability
   • Nesting: Weak nesting, strong nesting, dual nesting

Post-Migration Phase

Post-Quantum Algorithm Evaluation (Table 6):

• Lattice-Based Algorithms: Kyber (KEM), Dilithium (signature), Falcon (signature)
• Code-Based Algorithms: McEliece, BIKE, HQC
• Hash-Based Algorithms: SPHINCS+
• Isogeny-Based Algorithms: SIKE (already broken)

Certificate-Level Analysis

X.509 Certificate Vulnerabilities

Classical X.509 Certificate Risks (Table 7):

• All versions (v1, v2, v3) rely on classical public key cryptography
• Face spoofing, tampering, repudiation, and information disclosure threats
• Risk levels: Medium-to-high

Hybrid Certificate Strategies (Table 8)

1. Dual Certificates: Separately generate classical and post-quantum certificates
2. Composite Certificates: Use extension mechanisms to embed post-quantum certificates within classical certificates

Protocol-Level Analysis

Protocol Vulnerability Assessment

Major Protocol Risk Analysis (Table 10):

• Communication Security: SSH, TLS, mTLS, sFTP, FTPS, IPsec
• Email Security: PGP, S/MIME
• Authentication: Kerberos, SAML, OAuth
• Directory Services: LDAP
• Domain Name Services: DNSSEC
• Wireless Services: WiFi/WPA, DECT

Experimental Validation

Financial Application Case Study

Test Environment:

• Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 @ 2.3GHz, 64GB RAM
• Ubuntu 20.04 LTS, OpenSSL integrated with PQClean
• Simulated financial transaction system with 1000 TPS

Performance Results (Tables 13-14):

• Kyber512: Key generation 0.032ms, memory usage 0.593MB
• Dilithium2: Signature 0.179ms, verification 0.073ms
• SPHINCS+: Significantly higher signature time (41.603ms), but stronger security

Blockchain Environment Evaluation

Blockchain Platform Risk Analysis (Table 15):

• Bitcoin/Ethereum: ECDSA and SHA-256 face high risk
• Ripple/Litecoin: Similar cryptographic vulnerabilities
• Zcash: Zero-knowledge proof quantum vulnerabilities

Post-Quantum Signature Performance (Table 16):

• Dilithium5: Signature 0.25ms, verification 0.128ms
• Falcon-1024: Signature 1.003ms, verification 0.199ms
• SPHINCS+ Variants: Significant performance variations

Related Work Comparison

Systematic Comparative Analysis (Table 1)

Advantages of this research compared to existing work:

1. Comprehensiveness: Covers algorithms, certificates, and protocols across three layers
2. Systematicity: Covers risk assessment throughout the complete migration process
3. Practicality: Provides specific mitigation strategies and implementation guidance
4. Standardization: Based on NIST framework and STRIDE model

Major Related Works

• ETSI (2017): Provides foundational threat assessment but lacks detailed risk analysis
• Ma et al. (2021): Focuses on cryptographic agility but limited in scope
• White et al. (2022): Focuses on platform-specific migration guidance
• Hasan et al. (2024): Proposes dependency analysis framework but lacks comprehensive assessment

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Urgency Confirmed: Quantum threats have medium-to-high probability within 15-20 years; organizations need to begin preparation immediately.
2. Layered Risk: Risk levels differ across different layers and migration phases, requiring customized strategies.
3. Hybrid Strategy Effectiveness: Hybrid approaches during the transition period can balance security and compatibility.
4. Implementation Feasibility: Post-quantum algorithms are generally acceptable in performance, particularly the Kyber and Dilithium families.

Limitations

1. Qualitative Assessment: Primarily employs qualitative risk assessment, lacking precise quantitative models.
2. Expert Dependency: Quantum threat timelines based on expert surveys, subject to subjectivity.
3. Implementation Complexity: Organization-specific factors in actual deployment insufficiently considered.
4. Dynamicity: Uncertainty in quantum computing development may affect assessment accuracy.

Future Directions

1. Quantitative Models: Develop more precise quantitative risk assessment models.
2. Automated Tools: Construct automated risk assessment and migration planning tools.
3. Industry Customization: Develop specialized assessment frameworks for specific industries.
4. Continuous Monitoring: Establish dynamic risk monitoring and update mechanisms.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Systematicity: First to provide a complete risk assessment framework covering the three-layer architecture of algorithms, certificates, and protocols.
2. Standardized Methodology: Based on mature NIST and STRIDE frameworks with good operability.
3. High Practical Value: Provides specific mitigation strategies and implementation guidance with important reference value for practical deployment.
4. Sufficient Experimental Validation: Verifies framework feasibility through financial and blockchain case studies.

Weaknesses

1. Limited Theoretical Depth: Primarily systematic organization of existing knowledge, lacking original theoretical contributions.
2. Insufficient Quantitative Analysis: Risk assessment mainly relies on qualitative judgment, lacking precise mathematical models.
3. Inadequate Dynamicity Consideration: Insufficient analysis of adaptability to rapid quantum computing technology development.
4. Missing Cost-Benefit Analysis: Insufficient consideration of trade-offs between migration costs and security benefits.

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides important reference framework for quantum security risk assessment.
2. Practical Value: Provides practical guidance for organizations formulating quantum-safe migration strategies.
3. Policy Impact: Can provide technical support for relevant standard-setting and policy formulation.
4. Industry Promotion: Facilitates industrialization and application of quantum-safe technologies.

Applicable Scenarios

1. Large Organizations: Financial institutions, government departments, critical infrastructure operators.
2. Technical Assessment: Cryptographic system security assessment and migration planning.
3. Standard Development: Reference basis for industry standard and best practice formulation.
4. Academic Research: Foundational framework for quantum security-related research.

References

The paper cites 210 relevant references covering important works in quantum computing, cryptography, risk assessment, and cybersecurity, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.

Overall Evaluation: This is a comprehensive research paper with significant practical value. While relatively limited in theoretical innovation, its systematicity and practicality make it an important reference work in the field of quantum security risk assessment. The framework design is sound, experimental validation is sufficient, and the paper has important significance for promoting practical application of quantum-safe technologies.