Quantum Threat Readiness for Financial Institutions: A Guide to Post-Quantum Cryptography

Quantum computing is rapidly advancing, and with it comes a new class of cybersecurity risks that threaten the cryptographic foundations of the financial sector. For financial institutions (FIs), quantum threat readiness is no longer a theoretical concern but a critical operational imperative.

This guide explores what quantum threat readiness means, why the White House and NIST are driving the transition to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), and actionable steps FIs should take now to protect their organizations and customers.

NETBankAudit experts have over 25 years of experience in cybersecurity audits and compliance for financial institutions. If you have any questions after reading this guide, please reach out to our team.

Understanding Quantum Threat Readiness

What Is Quantum Threat Readiness?

Quantum threat readiness is an institution’s ability to identify, assess, prioritize, and migrate all cryptography that could be broken by a future cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC). This readiness also includes mitigating “harvest-now, decrypt-later” (HNDL) risks, where adversaries capture encrypted data today to decrypt it in the future. The scope of readiness spans governance, asset discovery, risk classification, crypto-agile architecture, vendor management, testing, deployment, monitoring, and reporting.

Why Is This Urgent for Financial Institutions?

Quantum computers are expected to break widely used public-key cryptography algorithms such as RSA and ECC, which underpin secure banking, payments, and digital identity. The White House’s National Security Memorandum-10 (NSM-10) and subsequent directives from NIST, OMB, CISA, and NSA have set a clear path for transitioning to PQC. These standards and roadmaps are not just for federal agencies; they serve as a model for critical infrastructure sectors, including financial services.

The Quantum Threat in Financial Institution Cybersecurity

Core Risks to Cryptography

Large-scale quantum computers will be able to break today’s public-key cryptography using Shor’s algorithm, undermining confidentiality, integrity, authentication, and non-repudiation across the financial system. This impacts protocols and systems such as TLS, VPNs, PKI/certificates, code signing, secure email, and payments messaging.

‍

Aspect	Classical Security	Quantum Risk
Encryption	RSA and ECC secure against brute force	Shor’s algorithm can break RSA and ECC
Data Protection	Harvested data remains safe if encrypted	Adversaries can decrypt stored data later
Authentication	Digital signatures ensure authenticity	Quantum attacks can forge signatures
Symmetric Crypto	AES-256 considered strong	Grover’s algorithm halves effective key length

‍

Symmetric Cryptography: Still Resilient, But Not Invulnerable

Symmetric algorithms like AES are more resilient to quantum attacks, as Grover’s algorithm only provides a quadratic speedup. This can be countered by using larger keys (e.g., AES-256). NSA’s CNSA 2.0 recommends strong symmetric primitives as part of a robust transition posture.

Harvest-Now, Decrypt-Later (HNDL) Risks

Adversaries can capture encrypted traffic and stored ciphertext today, with the intent to decrypt it once quantum computers become available. Long-lived sensitive financial data such as customer PII, transaction archives, legal agreements, authentication logs, and proprietary models are prime targets. Government guidance emphasizes mitigating HNDL risk now and prioritizing migration for data and transactions with long confidentiality lifetimes.

Why the White House and NIST Are Driving PQC Now

National Policy Direction: NSM-10 and the National Cybersecurity Strategy

The White House’s NSM-10 recognizes quantum computing as a significant risk to cryptographic systems and directs a coordinated transition to PQC. NIST is tasked with standardizing PQC algorithms, while OMB is responsible for issuing migration policies. The National Cybersecurity Strategy further commits the U.S. to accelerate adoption of secure, interoperable cryptographic standards, including PQC.

‍

Standard	Focus Area	Notes
FIPS 203	Key Encapsulation (ML-KEM)	Based on lattice problems
FIPS 204	Digital Signatures (ML-DSA)	Provides strong authentication
FIPS 205	Hash-Based Signatures (SLH-DSA)	Well-suited for firmware and updates
CNSA 2.0	NSA Suite	Emphasizes stronger symmetric and hash algorithms

‍

OMB M-23-02: A Blueprint for Migration

OMB Memo M-23-02 requires federal agencies to designate PQC leads, inventory all cryptographic systems, prioritize systems protecting long-lived sensitive data, engage vendors, and plan for migration. These measures form a pragmatic blueprint for regulated critical infrastructure entities, including FIs, given similar dependencies and risk landscapes.

NIST PQC Standardization and Guidance

NIST has completed multi-year evaluations and released PQC standards:

FIPS 203: Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) for key establishment.
FIPS 204: Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA) for general-purpose signatures.
FIPS 205: Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (SLH-DSA) for hash-based signatures.

These standards enable safe adoption at scale. NIST also provides guidance on stateful hash-based signatures (SP 800-208) and key management (SP 800-57). The NIST NCCoE’s PQC Migration project (SP 1800-38 series) offers practical patterns for cryptographic discovery and migration planning.

NSA CNSA 2.0 and CISA’s Roadmap

NSA’s CNSA 2.0 frames the national security community’s transition, emphasizing continued use of strong symmetric cryptography and adoption of NIST-standardized PQC. CISA’s PQC Roadmap urges critical infrastructure owners and operators to begin migration planning now, due to the complexity and interdependence of cryptographic ecosystems.

Actionable Steps for Financial Institutions

Establish Governance and Accountability

Effective quantum threat readiness starts with strong governance. Institutions should designate executive sponsors and a PQC program lead, typically the CISO or CTO, and establish cross-functional governance involving security architecture, risk, legal, procurement, compliance, and business lines. A formal PQC migration charter should define scope, objectives, risk appetite, and reporting cadence to senior management and the board.

Enterprise Cryptographic Discovery and Inventory

A thorough inventory is foundational. Following NIST NCCoE SP 1800-38A concepts, FIs should enumerate:

Protocols and configurations (e.g., TLS/HTTPS, VPNs, database encryption, APIs)
Public-key uses (key exchange, signatures, certificates, code-signing)
Crypto libraries and modules (OpenSSL, Java/C# libraries, HSMs/KMS)
PKI assets (internal CAs, certificate profiles, hardware constraints)
Applications and firmware (in-house code, vendor products, IoT/OT)
Third parties (cloud providers, SaaS, fintech partners, processors)

Each asset should be documented with metadata such as algorithms, key sizes, protocol versions, certificate validity periods, data sensitivity, confidentiality lifetime, and owner.

Classify Data by Confidentiality Lifetime and Identify HNDL Exposure

Mapping business processes and data assets to their required confidentiality lifetimes is essential. FIs should identify where traffic may be captured today and where archives or backups could be exfiltrated. Prioritizing assets with high impact in the event of a future cryptographic break is key to effective risk management.

Mitigate HNDL Risk Now Using Current Standards

Immediate steps can reduce exposure:

Use strong symmetric cryptography (e.g., AES-256, SHA-384/512) as recommended by NSA CNSA 2.0 and NIST.
Prefer forward secrecy for in-transit data and modern protocol configurations.
Limit retention of decrypted sensitive data and re-encrypt long-term archives with the strongest feasible symmetric options.
Tighten key management and rotation, and reduce long validity periods for certificates and session keys where possible.

Engineer for Crypto-Agility

Crypto-agility is the ability to swap cryptographic algorithms without widespread code changes. FIs should abstract cryptographic services behind internal APIs, store algorithm identifiers and version metadata with keys, and design for larger keys and signatures expected with PQC. Planning for FIPS 140-3 validated modules and coordinating with vendors is essential.

Vendor and Supply-Chain Engagement

Vendor dependencies are a major consideration. FIs should:

Inventory vendor dependencies and request PQC roadmaps aligned to NIST FIPS 203/204/205.
Update contracts and RFPs to require support for NIST PQC standards, crypto-agile design, and FIPS 140-3 validation commitments.
Coordinate with sector utilities and market infrastructures to align timelines for protocol and PKI transitions.

Pilot and Interoperability Testing

Testing is critical before widescale rollout. FIs should establish lab environments to test PQC KEMs and signatures in representative stacks, PKI use cases, network protocols, and HSM/KMS integrations. Performance, handshake sizes, and fail-safe behaviors should be measured, and findings should inform procurement and deployment plans.

Prioritized Migration Plans and Change Management

Deployments should be sequenced, starting with the highest HNDL risk and longest confidentiality lifetimes. A phased approach ensures stability; development/test, limited production pilots, scaled rollout. Security policies, standards, and baselines should be updated to incorporate PQC, and staff should be trained accordingly.

Monitoring, Governance Reporting, and Examiner Readiness

Maintaining dashboards on inventory coverage, HNDL mitigation actions, pilot outcomes, vendor readiness, and migration status is vital. Documenting alignment to federal best practices demonstrates due diligence to examiners and stakeholders. Continuous monitoring of NIST, CISA, and NSA updates ensures plans remain current.

THE GOLD STANDARD IN
Cybersecurity and Regulatory Compliance

Request For Proposal Ask a Question

Technical Standards and Considerations

NIST PQC Standards and Module Validation

FIs should anchor their programs to NIST PQC standards:

FIPS 203 (ML-KEM): Key encapsulation for shared secrets in protocols like TLS and IPsec.
FIPS 204 (ML-DSA): Lattice-based digital signatures for general use.
FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA): Stateless hash-based signatures for long-term signature scenarios.

Adopt vendor crypto modules that are FIPS 140-3 validated with PQC algorithms, and coordinate roadmaps for updated validations via the CMVP.

Protocol Profiles and Hybrid Approaches

Expect transitional profiles that combine classical and PQC mechanisms during early deployment. Follow NSA, NIST, and CISA profiles as they are published, and avoid custom, nonstandard constructions.

Sizing and Performance Impacts

PQC keys, signatures, and handshake messages are generally larger than those used in ECC or RSA. FIs should plan for larger certificate chains, increased bandwidth and latency, and impacts on HSM/KMS capacity. These assumptions should be validated through pilots before widescale rollout.

Symmetric Cryptography Posture

Continue using strong symmetric cryptography (e.g., AES-256, SHA-384/512) and review key lengths and lifetimes per NIST SP 800-57.

Regulatory and Sector Alignment for Financial Institutions

Quantum Readiness Audit and Examiner Expectations

Current Regulatory Expectations

While there is no explicit mandate for FIs to deploy PQC as of 2024, U.S. banking regulators require risk-based information security programs, effective cryptographic control, key management, third-party oversight, governance, and change management. Examiners evaluate whether encryption risks are being identified and managed over time. A documented, risk-based PQC readiness program, aligned with NIST and CISA guidance, demonstrates due diligence under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), FFIEC IT Handbook, OCC Comptroller’s Handbook, Federal Reserve, and FDIC examination programs.

Mapping PQC Readiness to Supervisory Frameworks

PQC readiness activities map directly to regulatory expectations:

Include quantum risk in enterprise risk assessments and board reporting.
Maintain a cryptographic inventory and data classification by confidentiality lifetime.
Update policies to prefer FIPS 140-3 validated modules and NIST PQC standards.
Embed PQC requirements in vendor contracts and monitor vendor milestones.
Stand up PQC testbeds and document testing, change management, and resilience plans.

Examiner Readiness: Artifacts and Evidence

FIs should be prepared to provide:

PQC migration charter and governance documentation
Cryptographic inventory and data classification
Policies and standards referencing FIPS 140-3 and NIST PQC adoption
Vendor due diligence packages and contract clauses
PQC lab test results and change management records
Operational resilience impact assessments and incident response playbooks

A Practical, Phased Roadmap for Financial Institutions

Phase 0–6 Months: Mobilize and Discover

Appoint leadership, approve a program charter, and launch cryptographic discovery. Classify data by confidentiality lifetime, identify HNDL exposures, and implement immediate mitigations. Engage key vendors and gather their PQC plans.

Phase 6–18 Months: Engineer and Pilot

Implement crypto-agile abstractions, update PKI design, and run PQC pilots in testbeds. Produce a prioritized migration plan and budget, and coordinate with sector partners.

Phase 18–36 Months and Beyond: Migrate and Scale

Adopt PQC in production for the highest-risk use cases as standards and validated modules become available. Expand to general-purpose channels, deprecate quantum-vulnerable algorithms, and continuously update inventories and processes.

Common Pitfalls and Clarifications

Key Points to Avoid and Address

FIs should be aware of several common pitfalls:

Do not wait for a “quantum day”, start inventories and mitigations now.
Do not pursue Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) as a general solution; prioritize NIST-standardized PQC.
Avoid nonstandard or proprietary cryptography; stick to NIST standards and FIPS 140-3 validated modules.
Plan for operational impacts, including larger PQC artifacts and network/storage effects.
Crypto-agility is essential, as PQC will continue to evolve.

Partner with NETBankAudit for Quantum Threat Readiness

Quantum threat readiness is a multi-year journey that requires strategic planning, technical expertise, and ongoing vigilance. NETBankAudit offers specialized services to help financial institutions navigate the transition to post-quantum cryptography.

With over 25 years of experience in financial institution cybersecurity and compliance, NETBankAudit is your trusted partner for quantum threat readiness. Complete a request for proposal today to discuss how we can help your institution prepare for the quantum future.

 
class SampleComponent extends React.Component { 
  // using the experimental public class field syntax below. We can also attach  
  // the contextType to the current class 
  static contextType = ColorContext; 
  render() { 
    return <Button color={this.color} /> 
  } 
}