A STUDY OF POST-QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study reviews post-quantum cryptographic algorithms for secure communication, focusing on standardized lattice-based schemes and their practical deployment implications. Classical public-key systems such as RSA and elliptic curve cryptography remain central to secure communication, but their long-term security is threatened by quantum algorithms capable of solving factorization and discrete logarithm problems. The study adopts a hybrid approach combining literature-based review with dataset-driven performance analysis. The empirical evaluation compares ML-KEM and ML-DSA with RSA-4096 and ECDSA-P256 using CPU benchmarking and network simulation metrics. Results indicate that ML-KEM provides substantial computational advantages over RSA-4096, making it suitable for latency-sensitive key establishment. ML-DSA also demonstrates competitive performance, especially in verification, but introduces larger signature sizes than ECDSA-P256. The analysis shows that the main deployment challenge is not computational feasibility but increased communication overhead caused by larger keys, ciphertexts, and signatures. These findings suggest that post-quantum migration requires more than direct algorithm replacement. Effective deployment should involve protocol optimization, crypto-agility, hybrid transition strategies, and context-specific parameter selection. Although the dataset focuses mainly on lattice-based algorithms, the study confirms the practical relevance of standardized post-quantum schemes for future secure communication infrastructure and identifies directions for broader evaluation across additional PQC families, including code-based, hash-based, multivariate approaches, real-world networks, and implementation-level security testing in practice contexts.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties, and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the IJRDO Journal will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.
References
2.Alagic, G., Alperin-Sheriff, J., Apon, D., Cooper, D., Dang, Q., Kelsey, J., ... & Smith-Tone, D. (2020). Status report on the second round of the NIST post-quantum cryptography standardization process. US Department of Commerce, NIST, 2, 69.
3.Alagic, G., Bros, M., Ciadoux, P., Cooper, D., Dang, Q., Dang, T., ... & Waller, N. (2025). Status report on the fourth round of the NIST post-quantum cryptography standardization process (p. 5). Gaithersburg, MD, USA: US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
4.Bernstein, D. J. (2025). Post-quantum cryptography. In Encyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy (pp. 1846-1847). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
5.Chen, L., Chen, L., Jordan, S., Liu, Y. K., Moody, D., Peralta, R., ... & Smith-Tone, D. (2016). Report on post-quantum cryptography (Vol. 12). Gaithersburg, MD, USA: US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
6.Cooper, D. (2024). Stateless hash-based digital signature standard.
7.Crockett, E., Paquin, C., & Stebila, D. (2019). Prototyping post-quantum and hybrid key exchange and authentication in TLS and SSH. Cryptology ePrint Archive.
8.Havanur, S. G., Kumar, R., & Jacob, A. (2025, September). Validation Framework for Module Lattice-Based Post-Quantum Digital Signature Scheme. In 2025, the 6th IEEE International Conference on Public Key Infrastructure and its Applications (PKIA) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
9.Kampanakis, P., & Childs-Klein, W. (2024). The impact of data-heavy, post-quantum TLS 1.3 on the Time-To-Last-Byte of real-world connections. Cryptology ePrint Archive.
10.Mendonça, Sérgio; Reis Quietinho Leithardt, Valderi; Andrew Crocker, Paul (2026), “Comparative Performance Dataset: Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards vs. Classical Cryptographic Baselines”, Mendeley Data, V1.
11.Montenegro, J. A., Rios, R., & Lopez-Cerezo, J. (2025). A performance evaluation framework for post-quantum TLS. Future Generation Computer Systems, 108062.
12.Moody, D., Alagic, G., Alperin-Sheriff, J. M., Apon, D. C., Cooper, D. A., Dang, Q. H., ... & Perlner, R. A. (2019). Status report on the first round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process. Nat. Inst. Standards Technol., Tech. Rep.
13.Moody, D., Perlner, R., Regenscheid, A., Robinson, A., & Cooper, D. (2024). Transition to post-quantum cryptography standards (No. NIST Internal or Interagency Report (NISTIR) 8547 (Draft)). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
14.Nagy, N., Alnemer, S., Alshuhail, L. M., Alobiad, H., Almulla, T., Alrumaihi, F. A., ... & Nagy, M. (2025). Module-lattice-based key-encapsulation mechanism performance measurements. Sci, 7(3), 91.
15.Paquin, C., Stebila, D., & Tamvada, G. (2020, April). Benchmarking post-quantum cryptography in TLS. In International Conference on Post-Quantum Cryptography (pp. 72-91). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
16.Schwabe, P., Stebila, D., & Wiggers, T. (2020, October). Post-quantum TLS without handshake signatures. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security (pp. 1461-1480).