Evidence signature
Public signals bind to governed proof.
No customer data.
QScout proof sequence. Evidence Handshake. public-to-private proof path. No customer data.
QScout-specific methodology
How QScout derives HNDL scores, severity weighting, finding confidence, CycloneDX CBOM structure, and report quality gates. The comprehensive treatment below covers the 7-factor HNDL model, single-break-year confidence intervals, NIST CNSA 2.0 alignment, and the migration-deadline calculator.
QScout Free Module Scope
QScout Free runs 24 requester-authorized public-surface modules across up to 10 total authorized same-domain public hosts.
Our methodology combines automated scanning, provider-aligned workflow validation, and expert analysis to uncover cryptographic vulnerabilities and quantify their business impact.
~24 min readMethodology claims are governed by a live claim registry, review requirements for qualifying zero-critical challenge outcomes, and release evidence for public QStrike statements.
Key Takeaway:Our methodology uses multi-level analysis to compute a scenario-weighted “Board Number” risk metric. Public QStrike materials are limited to provider-aligned workflow profiles, release-verified modeled runtime statements, and governed claim-registry wording. Buyer-facing claims stay mapped to NIST IR 8547, CNSA 2.0, OMB M-23-02, NSM-10, and EO 14028 requirements.
We provide a scenario-weighted exposure model that translates technical findings into a single board-ready risk metric. This model incorporates the likelihood of a cryptographically-induced breach (accounting for emerging quantum capabilities) and the business impact of such a breach. Our assessment engine combines passive, authenticated, and quantum-specific analysis to compute this risk in financial terms.
A typical engagement might reveal catastrophic, irreversible data exposure due to quantum-vulnerable encryption inside the client's retention window — a level of risk that exceeds any reasonable appetite. By quantifying exposure in dollars and scenario impact, boards can act on math, not fear.
All assumptions (asset value, threat timelines, discount rates) and intermediate calculations are documented so the math survives audit scrutiny. Breach cost baseline: $4.88M global average (IBM/Ponemon 2024). Regulatory timeline: NIST IR 8547 deprecation path through 2035; OMB M-23-02 federal mandate. Cryptographic Debt analysis methodology informed by Federal Reserve research (2025) and G7 Cyber Expert Group roadmap.
When analysis flags a potential weakness exploitable by a quantum adversary, public materials stay at the provider-aligned workflow level. Scoped customer engagements determine when hardware-backed validation is used and what provider evidence is included in the final report.
Public materials describe provider-aligned workflow validation and release evidence. Scoped customer engagements determine when hardware-backed validation is used, and those artifacts are included in customer reports when the scope requires them.
What we do not include in samples: No private keys, no customer traffic, no internal hostnames, no sensitive architecture diagrams.
Governed QScout follow-up can produce a CycloneDX 1.7 Cryptographic Bill of Materials with machine-readable quantum risk classification. QScout Free remains a browser-safe executive snapshot; raw enterprise artifacts and signed delivery require approved scope.
Redacted sample materials with Board Number calculation, CBOM excerpts, and scoped-validation evidence are available upon request. Sample materials are sanitized before buyer review and exclude customer identifiers, private keys, and internal network details.
Governed validation artifacts remain available for procurement and audit review. Public references are anonymized and normalized for release.
Public proof: Public diligence summaries describe governed engagement patterns. Buyer identifiers are removed, sensitive details are normalized, and public metrics are banded before release so procurement teams can assess outcomes without exposing protected environments.
Buyer-facing validation language is now tied to the governed claim registry. If a proof pack or review statement is not live in the registry, it should not appear in product or buyer materials.
Each engagement includes at least one deep-dive finding showing how a quantum-relevant attack path could succeed given a specific vulnerability. We do not claim that today's public hardware can trivially break strong crypto like RSA-2048 on its own. Instead, we focus on scenarios where a classical weakness materially reduces problem complexity and then document the validation path used in the engagement.
What we claim: Classical techniques find the vulnerability. Scoped validation records how the exploit path was assessed and what evidence was captured for the client report. This gives clients a concrete proof trail for the most critical quantum-relevant weakness in their environment.
Current public quantum hardware cannot break production RSA-2048 wholesale. Our methodology documents exploit mechanics where classical shortcuts (key leaks, weak entropy, implementation flaws) materially reduce problem complexity, and the engagement report records what validation path was actually used.
The public record on PQC migrations is thin but growing. Most organizations treat these projects as competitive intelligence. These verified implementations prove PQC works in production — and reveal the real challenges enterprises face.
Cloudflare
Hybrid X25519+Kyber on all edge servers (Oct 2022). By March 2025, 38% of HTTPS traffic encrypted with PQC algorithms (Cloudflare Radar). Encountered middlebox failures after Chrome 124 release.
Apple (iMessage PQ3)
PQ3 deployed March 2024. Combines post-quantum initial key establishment with three ongoing ratchets. Formally verified with ETH Zürich's Tamarin tool.
Google Chrome
X25519Kyber768 enabled by default in Chrome 124 (April 2024). Reported 4% TLS handshake slowdown from additional 1.1-1.2kB per direction (Google, 2024).
AWS
ML-KEM for hybrid PQC key agreement deployed across KMS, Secrets Manager, and Certificate Manager in all regions (non-FIPS endpoints).
JPMorgan Chase
Implemented quantum-secured crypto-agile network (Q-CAN) connecting two data centers. Third quantum node established as research platform. Uses both PQC and QKD as layered defense.
HSBC + Quantinuum
Production PQC-VPN tunnel in gold tokenization environment. Observed minimal performance impact irrespective of data size. Demonstrated PQC can protect DLT without re-architecture.
What remains missing:No enterprise has published a complete end-to-end migration with costs, timelines, and lessons learned. That gap is where QSolve operates — providing the migration governance, sequencing discipline, and standards-mapped execution structure that turn proof-of-concepts into production deployments.
Redacted sample reports, third-party review letters, and scanner comparison data available under NDA.
Qtonic Quantum runs two surfaces with one truth contract. The public surface (Lab registry, QScout Free executive snapshot, published methodology) renders against published artifacts and published proof metadata. The private surface (governed QScout engagement, QStrike validation) operates on customer evidence under engagement-specific access. The progression from public Lab signal to private engagement evidence is what we call the public-to-private proof path.
The Evidence Handshake is the deterministic binding between the public Lab registry and the governed QStrike evidence ledger. When a public Lab score advances to a governed engagement claim, the handshake binds:
Every artifact released under the public-to-private proof path carries a content hash that customers can verify against the live trust feed at /trust. The lab proof health endpoint exposes the current registry state at /lab.
Everything visible on qtonicquantum.com is rendered against published artifacts: the Lab registry, the QScout truth contract, the methodology rubric, and signed proof bundles. Customer evidence stays in the governed engagement boundary and is not transmitted to public surfaces.
Traditional scanners (Nessus, Qualys, Burp) excel at known CVEs and configuration checks. They don't assess quantum risk, Cryptographic Debt, or PQCreadiness. Here's what QScout finds that others miss:
| Finding Type | Nessus | Qualys | Burp | QScout |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cryptographic Debt Score (quantum harvest timeline) | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Post-Quantum Cryptography gaps (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Hybrid TLS detection (X25519Kyber768, ML-KEM hybrids) | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Email infrastructure quantum risk (DKIM RSA-1024, DANE, MTA-STS) | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Enterprise crypto inventory (KMS/Vault/HSM audit) | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Service mesh crypto posture (mTLS, Istio/Linkerd) | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Crypto drift over time (CT log replay, config changes) | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Quantum migration deadlines (industry-specific timelines) | — | — | — | ✓ |
Nessus / Qualys Output
TLS 1.2 Enabled ✓
Certificate Valid ✓
No vulnerabilities found
QScout Output
HIGH — Cryptographic Debt Assessment
Data retention: 10yr, Quantum break: 2030-2035
Action: Begin PQC migration planning NOW
HIGH — Quantum Risk Score: 50/100
RSA-2048 certificates vulnerable to Shor's
ECDHE-P256 vulnerable to quantum attack
MEDIUM — No Hybrid TLS Support
Missing X25519Kyber768 for quantum resistance
The same “secure” site that passes traditional scans can still carry material quantum exposure that QScout quantifies with actionable deadlines. Traditional scanner output routinely misses cryptographic context that only a dedicated inventory and evidence review will surface.
Detailed finding-by-finding comparison breakdowns available upon request.
The Cryptographic Debt Calculator provides organizations with a transparent, input-driven assessment of their quantum risk exposure from Harvest Now, Decrypt Later threats. This section documents the complete scoring methodology for audit and procurement review.
| Input | Options | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Data Sensitivity | Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted, Top Secret | Base risk weighting by data classification |
| Data Retention | 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20+ years | How long data must remain confidential |
| Adversary Capability | Low, Medium, High, Nation-State | Expected threat actor sophistication |
| Timeline Scenario | Early (2027), Planning (2030), Late (2038) | CRQC emergence assumption (user-selected) |
| Migration Complexity | Agile (2yr), Typical (3yr), Complex (5yr), Regulated (8yr) | Estimated time to complete PQC migration |
| Buffer Years | 0, 1, 2, 3 years | Safety margin for migration delays |
| Crypto Inventory | RSA, ECDSA, ECDH, AES, SHA, 3DES, MD5, custom | Algorithms in current environment |
| TLS Findings | TLS version, cipher suites, certificate details | Present-day cryptographic posture |
The calculator does not predict when CRQC will arrive. Instead, users select from three planning scenarios based on their risk tolerance:
Early (2027)
Conservative assumption. Assumes CRQC could emerge within 2-3 years. Appropriate for high-sensitivity data with long retention requirements.
Planning (2030)
Consensus estimate aligned with NIST/NSA guidance. Used by most enterprises for migration planning baseline.
Late (2038)
Optimistic assumption. May be appropriate for organizations with low-sensitivity data and short retention periods.
The composite risk score combines seven weighted factors (governed validation artifacts available for review). Weights are fixed and documented:
Algorithms are scored separately for Shor-vulnerability (future quantum threat) and present-day hygiene debt:
Shor-Vulnerable (Future Risk)
Present Hygiene Debt
The deadline rearranges Mosca's inequality — X + Y > Z, where X is the time a secret must remain secure, Y is the migration time, and Z is the time until a cryptanalytically relevant quantum computer — into a “start by” date:
Example: Planning scenario (2030) with Complex migration (5yr) and 2yr buffer = Start by 2023. If current year is 2026, the organization is already 3 years behind the recommended start date.
Critical
Score ≥ 80
High
Score ≥ 60
Medium
Score ≥ 40
Low
Score < 40
What This Calculator Does NOT Do
All calculator outputs include timestamp, version number, and complete input summary for audit trail purposes. The evidence summary provides a portable record suitable for internal documentation and compliance planning.