Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates adversarial algorithm substitution impacts availability in hybrid post-quantum TLS, suggesting significant countermeasure needs.
Hybrid post-quantum TLS deployments pair classical and post-quantum signature algorithms to resist future quantum adversaries. However, to the best of our knowledge, no active IETF TLS, PQUIP, or LAMPS working-group draft treats CPU-cost adversarial algorithm substitution as a first-class availability threat. We define the Cryptographic Amplification Factor (CAF), a metric for the per-resource cost asymmetry that an adversary induces by forcing a TLS 1.3 server onto a high-cost signature algorithm (SLH-DSA) instead of a low-cost one (ECDSA or ML-DSA). We characterise four adversary classes—insider misconfiguration, supply-chain compromise, remote TLS peer, and protocol man-in-the-middle—demonstrate working proof-of-concept exploits on representative testbeds, and evaluate three defensive primitives under realistic deployment conditions. On the liboqs 0.14.0 reference implementation, CAFrcpu reaches 12,255× on Apple M-series ARM64 and 14,272× on AWS Graviton3 (3904–14,272× across five microarchitectures). Under a representative two-worker hardware security module (HSM) calibration (λ=13.5 TPS), substitution drives the modelled queue utilisation ρ past the stability boundary (1.44×10−4→1.787), a model-independent saturation; on the testbed, we observe server-CPU saturation, accept-queue exhaustion, and dropped connections. Two enforcement defences and a Parallel Signing Architecture provably bound ρ≤α<1 by admission control, regardless of attack rate. The exposed surface is concentrated today in high-assurance and financial-sector deployments and widens as FIPS 206 finalises.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sammo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: