Inventory evidence & gaps
A scoped view of supplied records, known coverage, dependencies, provenance and evidence still needed. The current toolkit does not generate an automatically discovered or independently verified CBOM.
AI & digital infrastructure
Post-Quantum Readiness
Review cryptographic inventory evidence, crypto-agility, policy scope and migration dependencies. Build a post-quantum readiness plan with AssetSolve.
Know what depends on cryptography. Plan the transition with evidence.
The operating flow
One connected path through the work.
- 01
Establish the evidence boundary
Identify the systems, data lifetimes, owners and inventory coverage. Keep missing protocol, signing, key-management and supplier evidence visible.
- 02
Define the relevant transition
Review the applicable standards, organizational policy scope and target dates with qualified owners. Separate algorithm availability from demonstrated deployment.
- 03
Sequence the migration
Connect discovery effort, priority populations, application dependencies, supplier readiness and delivery windows to a staged migration schedule.
- 04
Gate implementation on measurements
Agree target-environment negotiation, compatibility, performance and recovery tests before accepting a change or expanding the rollout.
Post-quantum readiness / evidence before migration
The transition starts with the dependencies you can account for.
Cryptography sits across transport, signing, stored information, trust chains and suppliers. A useful readiness decision connects those dependencies to the business information they protect, the people who own them and the evidence still missing.
- 01 / EvidenceInventory coverage · owners · provenance
- 02 / ExposureData lifetimes · trust · dependencies
- 03 / TransitionApplicable scope · sequence · dates
- 04 / AcceptanceNegotiation · interoperability · recovery
Scope the work
Seven workstreams for a defensible migration plan.
Open each workstream to see the operating question and review output. The initial scope selects a bounded system population and the evidence its owners can provide.
01Inventory coverage & ownership
What do the approved records actually cover?
Review evidence for public edge, service mesh, SSH, software and document signing, key-management systems, HSMs, firmware and supplier dependencies. Record asset and business owners, provenance and gaps.
Review output: A scoped coverage and missing-evidence register; automatic discovery is separately scoped.
02Data lifetime & exposure
Which information needs protection for longest?
Connect confidentiality lifetimes and business use to the relevant storage, transport, signing and trust dependencies. Prioritize long-lived sensitive information with qualified data and security owners.
Review output: A reviewed prioritization basis tied to the selected systems and data.
03Standards & policy applicability
Which requirements apply to this population?
Distinguish algorithm standards, general transition guidance, government or national-security categories, regional guidance and contractual requirements. Record source dates and selected applicability rather than one universal deadline.
Review output: Explicit policy assumptions, responsible reviewers and date boundaries.
04Crypto-agility design
Where must algorithms and dependencies be replaceable?
Review protocol and signing interfaces, certificate and trust chains, key lifecycles, HSM/firmware support and supplier commitments. Define change boundaries and recovery responsibilities.
Review output: Architecture requirements and dependency decisions for the migration program.
05Migration sequence & feasibility
Can the plan meet its own target dates?
Include discovery duration, priority populations, supplier lead times, application dependencies, maintenance windows and staged rollout. Show schedule gaps against each selected policy scope and requested future-state date.
Review output: Owned migration waves with explicit dependencies and unresolved calendar gates.
06Transport & signature acceptance
Does the actual target environment behave as required?
Plan negotiation, compatibility, handshake, signature, CPU, latency and payload tests using the intended versions and workload. Published benchmark overhead is a reference, not a fleet-wide guarantee.
Review output: A before/after test matrix and evidence required to accept the change.
07Release, recovery & assurance
Who accepts the resulting operational state?
Define a bounded pilot, trust and key handling, recovery criteria, rollback limits, supplier escalation and independent review. Preserve the source evidence supporting each accepted transition.
Review output: Pilot and release criteria for the customer’s authorized security and platform owners.
The decision package
A plan the security, platform and business owners can review together.
Prioritized migration waves
A sequence tied to data lifetimes, platform and supplier dependencies, selected policy scope, discovery effort and target dates.
Architecture & acceptance requirements
Proposed crypto-agility controls, transport/signing tests, recovery responsibilities and evidence needed before operational release.
Use the feasibility and solution architecture offering to connect these findings with workload requirements, infrastructure constraints, design decisions and a portable JSON/Markdown review package.
Pilot & acceptance
Review the deployed behavior, not just the algorithm label.
Define the target-system test
Agree versions, actual protocol negotiation, certificate and signing dependencies, HSM and firmware support, interoperability, representative payloads, latency and resource measures. Include failure handling and the boundaries of any rollback.
Published TLS or signature examples help shape a test. Their overhead figures do not establish the result for another application, connection pattern or fleet.
Keep the current boundary clear
The reviewed offering evaluates declared evidence, requirements and migration schedules. This cycle did not scan a customer cryptographic inventory, exercise a target TLS endpoint or execute a production migration.
Those activities require separately scoped access, tools and validation. Qualified customer owners retain trust, key-management, policy and production-release decisions.
Standards context
Separate standards, applicability and deployment evidence.
NIST’s post-quantum standards describe algorithms for different purposes. Their existence does not establish platform support, policy applicability, migration completion or certification of a customer environment.
- FIPS 203: ML-KEM key encapsulation
- FIPS 204: ML-DSA digital signatures
- FIPS 205: SLH-DSA digital signatures
Review applicable guidance and dates with the responsible security, legal and policy owners. General standards-transition targets, system-specific requirements and regional guidance can have different scopes and milestones.
The business case
Define the improvement before the investment.
The operating challenge
An algorithm announcement does not reveal where cryptography is used, which information must remain confidential, or which supplier and operational dependencies determine migration readiness.
The decision to improve
Join inventory evidence and confidentiality lifetimes with scoped policy assumptions, key-exchange/signature pilot requirements, supplier dependencies and a reviewed migration calendar.
Who should be in the room
- Security and cryptography leader
- Enterprise architect
- Infrastructure and platform owner
- Risk and compliance reviewer
- Supplier and procurement lead
A focused first scope
One application or platform boundary, reviewed inventory evidence, applicable policy scope, supplier dependencies and an owned pilot/acceptance plan. Begin with a free initial assessment.
Build a measurable baseline.
Prioritize by information lifetime, exposure, migration lead time and system dependencies. Measure target-system performance and compatibility in the pilot; do not apply a universal overhead or deadline assumption.
Agree the baseline, comparable scope, adoption, review effort, and realization assumptions. Include delivery and operating costs; count each benefit once.
Application scope
The work it brings together.
- Cryptographic inventory evidence and coverage review
- Confidentiality-lifetime and dependency scoping
- Policy-scope and migration-calendar feasibility
- Crypto-agility architecture requirements
- Transport and signature acceptance planning
- Supplier, HSM and firmware dependency review
- Phased migration and recovery evidence plan
People & systems
Clear roles. Clear ownership.
Security and cryptography architects · Infrastructure and platform owners · Application and integration teams · Risk and compliance reviewers · Procurement and supplier managers · Business data owners
Authoritative records
- Customer-approved cryptographic inventory and asset records
- Certificate, protocol and signing evidence
- Key-management and hardware-security platform records
- Supplier support statements and applicable policy records
Governed by design
Authority stays with the people who own it.
The current toolkit reviews declared inventory evidence and requirements. It does not automatically discover cryptographic assets, generate a verified CBOM, scan TLS endpoints or migrate customer systems.
Policy selection is an operator assertion requiring qualified applicability review. A planning comparison does not determine legal obligations or certify compliance.
Published algorithm and TLS examples do not establish the customer fleet’s compatibility, negotiated algorithms or performance overhead.
Cryptographic changes, key operations, trust changes and production release remain with the customer’s authorized security and platform owners.
Read the workflow contract ↗A practical first scope
Start with a bounded operating decision.
Begin with a free initial assessment. Then select one application or platform population, review approved inventory evidence and confidentiality requirements, and produce an evidence-gap register, dependency map, migration sequence and target-environment acceptance plan. Paid delivery is agreed in a written proposal.
Measures to agree with your team
Explore indicative investment ↗Questions, answered
The details that shape your next step.
What does the post-quantum readiness engagement produce?
A bounded decision package: inventory coverage and missing evidence, relevant data lifetimes and dependencies, applicable policy assumptions, a staged migration plan, architecture requirements, and target-system tests needed for acceptance.
Does the toolkit scan our cryptographic estate automatically?
No. The current workbench evaluates declared inventory evidence, requirements and schedules. Automatic discovery, a verified cryptographic bill of materials, endpoint scans and production migration require separately scoped tooling, access and validation.
Is post-quantum cryptography the same as using a quantum computer?
No. Post-quantum cryptography concerns cryptographic methods designed to resist quantum-computing attacks while running on classical systems. A quantum solver experiment is a separate optional research path with its own baseline, verification and resource gates.
Does every organization have the same migration deadline?
No. The relevant dates depend on the standards-transition plan, jurisdiction, system category, contractual obligations and organizational policy. The engagement records selected scopes and date boundaries for qualified review rather than asserting a universal deadline.
Will adopting an algorithm name prove that a system is quantum-safe?
No. Review actual protocol negotiation, certificate and trust chains, signing dependencies, key management, HSM and firmware support, interoperability and recovery. A standards reference or supplier roadmap does not establish the deployed result.
How do we begin?
The initial assessment is free. Bring the business owner, security/platform owner, a bounded system population and approved inventory material. A proposal defines further diagnostic, pilot, integration and support work.
Connected products
Applications that carry the work forward.
AI & digital infrastructure
Data Center AGI Inference
Connect AI data center assessment, feasibility and solution architecture. Evaluate GPU capacity, inference performance, memory, power and cost with explicit evidence gates and a scoped post-quantum readiness workstream.
AI & digital infrastructure
Infrastructure Feasibility & Solution Architecture
Connect AI infrastructure and post-quantum readiness assessments to future-state requirements, evidence gates and a conditional solution architecture. Review capacity, quality, latency, cost, resource and migration constraints before committing to implementation.
Asset operations
APM Bridge
Connect asset health, engineering evidence, risk, funding, and maintenance execution in a governed operational workflow.
Work with AssetSolve
Start with the decision you need to improve.
Your initial assessment is on us. A first conversation about your challenge, use-case fit, and the right next step.