PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 20, 2025Electronics0 citationsOpen Access

Integrating and Benchmarking KpqC in TLS/X.509

View Full Paper
MSMinjoo SimGSGyeongju SongSESiwoo Eum

Key Points

  • KpqC certificates are 4.6–48.8× larger than ECC certificates, impacting deployment choices.
  • Handshake latency increases by 8–9× for KpqC and NIST PQC in computation-bound scenarios compared to ECC.
  • Network-bound testing shows similar performance, with relative overhead around 30–41% compared to ECC.
  • This evaluation supports strategies for migrating to post-quantum cryptography in TLS environments.

Abstract

Advances in quantum computing pose a fundamental threat to classical public-key cryptosystems, including RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography (ECC), which form the foundation for authentication and key exchange in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In response to these emerging threats, Korea launched the KpqC (Korea Post-Quantum Cryptography) project in 2021 to design, evaluate, and standardize domestic PQC algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic evaluation of the finalized Korean PQC algorithms (HAETAE, AIMer, SMAUG-T, NTRU+) within a production-grade TLS/X.509 stack, enabling direct comparison against NIST PQC and ECC baselines. To contextualize KpqC performance, we further compare against NIST-standardized PQC algorithms and classical ECC baselines. Our evaluation examines both static overhead (certificate size) and dynamic overhead (TLS 1.3 handshake latency) across computation-bound (localhost) and network-bound (LAN) scenarios, including embedded device and hybrid TLS configurations. Our results show that KpqC certificates are approximately 4.6–48.8× larger than ECC counterparts and generally exceed NIST PQC sizes. In computation-bound tests, both NIST PQC (ML-KEM) and KpqC hybrids exhibited similar handshake latency increases of approximately 8–9× relative to ECC. In network-bound tests, the difference between the two families was negligible, with relative overhead typically around 30–41%. These findings offer practical guidance for balancing security level, key size, packet size, and latency and support phased PQC migration strategies in real-world TLS deployments.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sim et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d469ce31b076d99fa669f3https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14183717
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Analysis of Post-Quantum Cryptography in User Equipment in 5G and Beyond2025
  2. 2Methodology and Architecture for Benchmarking End-to-End PQC Protocol Resilience in an IoT Context2026
  3. 3Enhancing the Security of Classical Communication with Post-Quantum Authenticated-Encryption Schemes for the Quantum Key Distribution2024 · 39 citations
  4. 4Hybrid Post-Quantum Cryptography in Network Protocols2024
  5. 5A Prototype for evaluating Post-Quantum Cryptography on resource-constrained Hardware with real-world Smart City Sensor Data2025 · 2 citations