## 2025 AMA Research Challenge Poster [Kyber Odyssey](./KO_MAP_AMA_2025_Turnin.pdf) ## Abstract ### Background The catastrophic Crowdstrike patch failure of July 19, 2024, exposed critical vulnerabilities in global healthcare systems, stemming from a memory safety issue in C++ code. This null pointer error, a common pitfall in languages without automatic memory management, led to system-wide failures in Microsoft-based environments while Linux/GNU and Apple systems remained unaffected. This event underscores the urgent need for robust, quantum-resistant cryptographic solutions in healthcare IT infrastructure. ### Methods We developed a protocol for building and benchmarking National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-endorsed classical and post-quantum encryption algorithms on-premesis, using consumer grade Linux computers to prioritize viability for underserved regions & underfunded institutions. We compiled OpenSSL with Open Quantum Safe (OQS) C library to enable post-quantum encryption development that allowed the same level of access as Crowdstrike's faulty driver code while allowing for bindings with numerous memory safe programming languages. Our focus on post-quantum Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) encryption reflects the ubiqutious protection that these protocols provide to secure communication and knowledge-work as well as the relative ease of hybridization with classical encryption protocols like Elliptical Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH). Following on-device compilation and installation of the encryption binaries, we built and executed an evaluation script with OpenSSL's native toolkit for twenty-four NIST-endorsed KEM protocols consisting of classical, quantum, and hybrid KEM implementations. We evaluated the KEMs on the number and rate of key generations (keygen), key encapsulation (encap) rate, and key decapsulations (decap) and rated their NIST post-quantum security level according to NIST advanced encryption standard (AES) exaustic key search levels. ### Results We successfully benchmarked all 24 KEM protocols, producing an example public/private key pair following the evaluation. The 24 KEM protocols are evenly split across NIST security levels 1, 3, and 5, with 8 protocols at each.We made all relevant code, regulatory information, and the example cryptographic key pairs available on the Qompass AI Github page. We released them under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) to maintain the free availability of these encryption tools to benefit communities. # Kyber Odyssey Cryptographic Security Benchmark | Algorithm | Type | NIST Security Level | Keygen (ms) | Encaps (ms) | Decaps (ms) | Keygens/s | Encaps/s | Decaps/s | Industry/Healthcare Usage | |:---------:|:----:|:-------------------:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:---------:|:--------:|:--------:|:------------------------:| | [Frodo640AES](https://frodokem.org/) | Quantum | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 0.361 | 0.503 | 0.481 | 2773.0 | 1988.9 | 2081.0 | [Experimental in IoT](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6891283/) | | [Frodo640SHAKE](https://frodokem.org/) | Quantum | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 2.240 | 2.364 | 2.346 | 446.5 | 423.0 | 426.3 | [Research in secure messaging](https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1356.pdf) | | [Frodo976AES](https://frodokem.org/) | Quantum | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 0.802 | 1.024 | 1.038 | 1247.0 | 976.8 | 963.6 | [Tested in satellite communications](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9435499) | | [Frodo976SHAKE](https://frodokem.org/) | Quantum | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 4.975 | 5.208 | 5.128 | 201.0 | 192.0 | 195.0 | [Evaluated for financial services](https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1356.pdf) | | [Frodo1344AES](https://frodokem.org/) | Quantum | [Level 5](#security-levels) | 1.350 | 1.656 | 1.599 | 741.0 | 604.0 | 625.3 | [Considered for long-term data protection](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-3-submissions) | | [Frodo1344SHAKE](https://frodokem.org/) | Quantum | [Level 5](#security-levels) | 8.772 | 9.174 | 9.009 | 114.0 | 109.0 | 111.0 | [Evaluated for government communications](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-3-submissions) | | [Kyber512](https://pq-crystals.org/kyber/) | Quantum | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 0.022 | 0.021 | 0.017 | 44556.1 | 47830.3 | 58718.0 | [Implemented in VPN services](https://www.openvpn.net/cloud-docs/openvpn-3-client-for-linux/) | | [Kyber768](https://pq-crystals.org/kyber/) | Quantum | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 0.033 | 0.032 | 0.028 | 30291.8 | 31060.6 | 36305.1 | [Tested in banking systems](https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2020/08/ibm-z15-quantum-safe-cryptography/) | | [Kyber1024](https://pq-crystals.org/kyber/) | Quantum | [Level 5](#security-levels) | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.040 | 22293.9 | 22075.8 | 24937.0 | [Evaluated for aerospace industry](https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/Quantum-safe_cryptography_for_space_missions) | | [MLKEM512](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/selected-algorithms-2022) | Quantum | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 0.022 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 45416.2 | 59462.2 | 57611.1 | [Research in smart home devices](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9311932) | | [MLKEM768](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/selected-algorithms-2022) | Quantum | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 0.036 | 0.027 | 0.027 | 28046.4 | 36703.0 | 37677.8 | [Evaluated for telemedicine platforms](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7779191/) | | [MLKEM1024](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/selected-algorithms-2022) | Quantum | [Level 5](#security-levels) | 0.045 | 0.040 | 0.042 | 22468.7 | 24869.7 | 23599.0 | [Considered for national defense networks](https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/News-Highlights/Article/Article/2696916/nsa-releases-future-quantum-resistant-qr-algorithm-requirements-for-national-se/) | | [BIKE-L1](https://bikesuite.org/) | Quantum | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 0.219 | 0.045 | 0.733 | 4556.0 | 22061.6 | 1364.6 | [Experimental in IoT networks](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9311932) | | [BIKE-L3](https://bikesuite.org/) | Quantum | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 0.631 | 0.107 | 2.404 | 1586.0 | 9351.5 | 416.0 | [Research in industrial control systems](https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/15/5247) | | [BIKE-L5](https://bikesuite.org/) | Quantum | [Level 5](#security-levels) | 1.658 | 0.243 | 5.657 | 603.0 | 4123.0 | 176.8 | [Evaluated for long-term data archiving](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-3-submissions) | | [HQC-128](https://pqc-hqc.org/) | Quantum | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 1.828 | 3.613 | 5.882 | 547.0 | 276.8 | 170.0 | [Research in wearable tech security](https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/15/5247) | | [HQC-192](https://pqc-hqc.org/) | Quantum | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 5.525 | 10.989 | 16.949 | 181.0 | 91.0 | 59.0 | [Evaluated for healthcare data exchange](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7779191/) | | [HQC-256](https://pqc-hqc.org/) | Quantum | [Level 5](#security-levels) | 10.000 | 21.277 | 31.250 | 100.0 | 47.0 | 32.0 | [Considered for military communications](https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/News-Highlights/Article/Article/2696916/nsa-releases-future-quantum-resistant-qr-algorithm-requirements-for-national-se/) | | [P-256 + Kyber512](https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/pqc-migration-nist-sp-1800-38c-preliminary-draft.pdf) | Hybrid | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 0.771 | 0.162 | 0.376 | 1296.9 | 6183.8 | 2658.2 | [Tested in e-commerce platforms](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-tune-tls-for-hybrid-post-quantum-cryptography-with-kyber/) | | [P-384 + Kyber768](https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/pqc-migration-nist-sp-1800-38c-preliminary-draft.pdf) | Hybrid | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 1.070 | 1.071 | 1.119 | 934.3 | 933.3 | 894.0 | [Evaluated for cloud storage services](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-tune-tls-for-hybrid-post-quantum-cryptography-with-kyber/) | | [P-521 + Kyber1024](https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/pqc-migration-nist-sp-1800-38c-preliminary-draft.pdf) | Hybrid | [Level 5](#security-levels) | 0.959 | 0.991 | 1.061 | 1042.9 | 1009.1 | 942.4 | [Research in quantum-resistant blockchains](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02739) | | [X25519 + Kyber512](https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/pqc-migration-nist-sp-1800-38c-preliminary-draft.pdf) | Hybrid | [Level 1](#security-levels) | 0.071 | 0.105 | 0.099 | 14135.7 | 9543.4 | 10106.1 | [Implemented in secure messaging apps](https://signal.org/blog/pqxdh/) | | [X25519 + Kyber768](https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/pqc-migration-nist-sp-1800-38c-preliminary-draft.pdf) | Hybrid | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 0.086 | 0.115 | 0.111 | 11621.4 | 8704.0 | 9040.0 | [Evaluated for VPN services](https://www.openvpn.net/cloud-docs/openvpn-3-client-for-linux/) | | [X448 + Kyber768](https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/pqc-migration-nist-sp-1800-38c-preliminary-draft.pdf) | Hybrid | [Level 3](#security-levels) | 0.274 | 0.487 | 0.491 | 3644.9 | 2055.1 | 2037.4 | [Research in high-security financial systems](https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1356.pdf) | ## Legend | Term | Explanation | Security Implication | |:----:|:-----------:|:--------------------:| | Algorithm | The name of the encryption method used to secure data | N/A | | NIST Security Level | Indicates the level of security as defined by NIST | Higher is more secure | | Keygen (ms) | Time taken to generate a key pair (in milliseconds) | Lower is generally better, but too low may indicate weakness | | Encaps (ms) | Time taken to encapsulate (encrypt) a shared secret (in milliseconds) | Lower is better for performance, but should balance with security | | Decaps (ms) | Time taken to decapsulate (decrypt) a shared secret (in milliseconds) | Lower is better for performance, but should balance with security | | Keygens/s | Number of key pairs that can be generated per second | Higher is better for performance, but should balance with security | | Encaps/s | Number of encapsulations that can be performed per second | Higher is better for performance, but should balance with security | | Decaps/s | Number of decapsulations that can be performed per second | Higher is better for performance, but should balance with security | | Industry/Healthcare Usage | Examples of current or potential use in industry or healthcare | N/A | ## Security Levels | Level | Description | Healthcare Example | |:-----:|:-----------:|:------------------:| | [Level 1](https://blog.cloudflare.com/pq-2024) | At least as hard to break as AES-128 | [Securing patient portals](https://www.healthit.gov/topic/privacy-security-and-hipaa/security-risk-assessment-tool) | | [Level 3](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/faqs) | At least as hard to break as AES-192 | [Protecting electronic health records (EHRs)](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity/index.html) | | [Level 5](https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Presentations/Let-s-Get-Ready-to-Rumble-The-NIST-PQC-Competiti/images-media/PQCrypto-April2018_Moody.pdf) | At least as hard to break as AES-256 | [Safeguarding genomic data](https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Privacy) | Note: While higher security levels provide stronger protection, they often come with increased computational costs. The choice of security level should be based on the sensitivity of the data and the specific requirements of the healthcare application. ### Conclusion Out of the evaluated KEMs, we propose hybrid combinations of ECDH and Kyber for most acute adoption of enhanced encryption protocols due to the layered security of nascent post-quantum encryption with established efficient classical protocols. Currently, Google Chrome implements X25519_Kyber768 hybrid encryption as part of its Transport Layer Security (TLS), offering a familiar and accessible platform to perform institutional assessements. ## References 1. [Password authenticated key exchange-based on Kyber for mobile devices](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38660167/) 2. [Post-quantum healthcare: A roadmap for cybersecurity resilience in medical data](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38826742/) 3. [Transitioning organizations to post-quantum cryptography](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35546191/) # Acknowledgment We would like to thank the Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society and Zimmer Biomet for their generous support of our work.

[1] International Counter Ransomware Initiative 2024 Joint Statement

[2] Contec CMS8000 Contains a Backdoor

[3] CISA, FDA warn of vulnerabilities in Contec patient monitors

[4] The Top 10 Health Data Breaches of the First Half of 2024

[5] CISA's K-12 Cybersecurity Initiatives

[6] Federal Trade Commission Operation AI Comply: continuing the crackdown on overpromises and AI-related lies

[7] A Proclamation on Cybersecurity Awareness Month, 2024

[8] Minneapolis school district says data breach affected more than 100,000 people