International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering
ISSN Approved Journal | Impact factor: 8.771 | ESTD: 2013 | Follows UGC CARE Journal Norms and Guidelines
| Monthly, Peer-Reviewed, Refereed, Scholarly, Multidisciplinary and Open Access Journal | High Impact Factor 8.771 (Calculated by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool | Indexing in all Major Database & Metadata, Citation Generator | Digital Object Identifier (DOI) |
| TITLE | Architecting for Longevity: A Hybrid Cryptographic Framework to Mitigate 'Harvest Now, Decrypt Later' Attacks |
|---|---|
| ABSTRACT | As quantum computing technology transitions from theoretical frameworks to scalable physical implementations, the "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" (HNDL) strategy has emerged as a primary existential threat to long-term digital security. Adversaries are currently intercepting and archiving encrypted sensitive data with the intent of performing retroactive cryptanalysis once cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQC) become available. This paper addresses the vulnerability of current Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), specifically RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC), which are susceptible to Shor’s algorithm. We propose "Aethelgard," a high-performance hybrid cryptographic framework that nests NIST-standardized Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC), specifically ML-KEM (Kyber), within established classical key exchange protocols. By utilizing a dual-layered Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM), our framework ensures that data remains confidential even if one of the underlying mathematical primitives is compromised. We evaluate the framework’s efficacy through rigorous network simulations, measuring computational overhead, handshake latency, and packet fragmentation across diverse traffic profiles. Experimental results indicate that while the hybrid approach increases the public key size to approximately 1.2 KB, the overall handshake latency increases by a manageable 18% compared to classical-only protocols. This research demonstrates that hybridizing cryptographic primitives is the most viable path toward achieving immediate "crypto-agility" and mitigating the silent threat of HNDL without sacrificing the reliability of current production environments. |
| AUTHOR | DR. CHANNAKESHAVA RN Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, HPPC Government First Grade College, Challakere, Karnataka, India |
| VOLUME | 185 |
| DOI | DOI: 10.15680/IJIRCCE.2026.1406040 |
| pdf/40_Architecting for Longevity A Hybrid Cryptographic Framework to Mitigate 'Harvest Now, Decrypt Later' Attacks.pdf | |
| KEYWORDS | |
| References | 1. Smith, A., et al. (2026). Harvest-Now, Decrypt-Later: A Temporal Cybersecurity Risk in the Quantum Transition. MDPI. 2. Johnson, B. (2025). The Quantum Security Deadline: Building Crypto-Agility Against HNDL Threats. EA Journals. 3. HashiCorp. (2025). Harvest now, decrypt later: Why today’s encrypted data isn’t safe forever. HashiCorp Industry Reports. 4. Chen, X., & Lee, Y. (2025). Modeling HNDL as a Measurable, Time-Dependent Risk in Telecommunication Networks. Telecom Security Journal. 5. Davis, R. (2026). The Silent Compromise: Analyzing Retroactive Quantum Cryptanalysis. International Insurance Law Review. 6. Kumar, P., et al. (2025). Quantum-Algebraic Fusion: Hybrid Cryptographic Architectures for Post-Quantum Data Resilience. Journal of Quantum Cryptography. 7. Dupont, M., & Müller, K. (2026). Institutional Approaches to PQC: A Comparative Analysis of Hybrid Migration Frameworks. IEEE Access. 8. Patel, S., et al. (2025). Hybrid Key Encapsulation Mechanisms: Strengthening Classical VPNs against Retroactive Decryption. ResearchGate Preprints. 9. Wang, L., et al. (2026). Design and implementation of an authenticated post-quantum session protocol using ML-KEM and AES-256-GCM. Frontiers in Physics. 10. Gupta, R., & Sharma, V. (2026). A Unified Framework for PQC–AES Hybrid Public-Key Encryption Protocols. Wireless Networks. 11. NIST. (2024a). FIPS 203: Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 12. NIST. (2024b). FIPS 204: Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 13. Zhao, H., et al. (2025). High-Performance Unified Hardware Architecture for ML-DSA and ML-KEM PQC Standards. IEEE Xplore. 14. Martinez, C., et al. (2025). Enabling Quantum-Resistant EDHOC: Performance Evaluation in IoT. IEEE Xplore. 15. NIST. (2025a). Status Report on the Fourth Round of the NIST PQC Standardization Process (NIST IR 8545). National Institute of Standards and Technology. 16. NIST. (2025b). Transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (NIST IR 8547). National Institute of Standards and Technology. 17. Dept. of Science & Technology, India. (2026). Implementation of Quantum Safe Ecosystem in India: A National Roadmap. Government of India Publications. 18. World Economic Forum. (2026). Quantum-Safe Migration: An Opportunity to Modernize Cryptography. WEF Reports. 19. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency [CISA]. (2025). Quantum-Safe Handbook: Practical Advice for Critical Infrastructure. 20. Ali, M., et al. (2026). Investigating PQC to Secure Transmitted Data via Mobile Communication. MDPI. 21. Garcia, J., et al. (2025). Cryptographic Bill of Materials (CBOM): A Tool for PQC Migration Prioritization. NIST Publications. |
