Quantum Readiness Assessment
Understand the quantum threat to your infrastructure, see quantum handled with rigor rather than hype, measure your own readiness against the federal mandate, and get a clear next step.
Built to support complex environments where performance, reliability, security, and clarity matter.
See what quantum changes, what remains resilient, and why planning starts before the machine arrives.
ProofExplore a transparent quantum dashboard with simulator results, noise modeling, and confidence intervals.
MeasureAnswer a focused assessment and get a decide-by date tied to system type and migration lead time.
PlanConnect cryptographic inventory, data lifetime, vendor dependencies, and reporting into one path.
Quantum risk, without the hype
The risk is not that every system fails tomorrow. The risk is that long-lived data, brittle cryptography, and fixed federal deadlines create a planning problem today.
Your locks break.
The public-key cryptography behind TLS, VPNs, certificates, and firmware signing rests on math a quantum computer can solve. Those break. Symmetric encryption like AES-256 survives.
The theft is now.
Adversaries record encrypted data today to decrypt once the machine exists. Anything that must stay secret for a decade is effectively exposed today.
The deadline is law.
Federal mandates require migration to quantum-resistant cryptography on fixed dates between 2030 and 2035. With multi-year procurement, the decision lands now.
What a quantum computer actually is.
Not a faster computer, a different machine that is very good at a narrow set of math problems. One of those problems underlies today's encryption. Today's machines cannot break RSA yet.
What breaks and what survives.
Shor's algorithm breaks RSA, ECC, and Diffie-Hellman, including key exchange, PKI, signatures, firmware signing, secure boot, and SSH. Grover's algorithm only weakens symmetric crypto. AES-256 stays safe.
The data center attack surface.
Breakable cryptography lives in TLS and HTTPS, VPNs and IPsec, PKI and certificates, code and firmware signing, secure boot, SSH, and key management.
The timeline, honestly.
Resource estimates to break RSA-2048 have fallen sharply, from roughly 20 million qubits in 2019 to under 1 million in 2026 work, with credible estimates now clustering between 2029 and 2037. The direction is one-way. The deadlines are fixed regardless.
The standards and the fix.
NIST finalized FIPS 203 for ML-KEM key establishment, FIPS 204 for ML-DSA signatures, and FIPS 205 for SLH-DSA in August 2024. Migration, crypto-agility, and strong entropy are the path.
From quantum awareness to resilient security
LOBOBYTE helps organizations turn the quantum conversation into a practical security path: understand what breaks, identify where cryptography lives, prioritize long-lived data, and plan migration toward standards-based post-quantum controls.
Educate the decision makers
Translate quantum risk into plain language for leadership, security teams, infrastructure owners, and procurement stakeholders.
Find the cryptographic exposure
Map where vulnerable public-key cryptography appears across TLS, VPNs, PKI, SSH, firmware signing, key management, and vendor platforms.
Prioritize the migration path
Sequence action around data lifetime, mission impact, system dependency, procurement timing, and federal post-quantum deadlines.
Build quantum-resilient security
Define crypto-agility, post-quantum migration waves, vendor requirements, validation needs, and reporting models that can evolve over time.
What quantum-resilient security means
Quantum readiness is not simply replacing one algorithm with another. It is an architecture, governance, and modernization effort that prepares systems to move from vulnerable public-key cryptography to resilient, standards-aligned controls without losing operational clarity.
Quantum dashboard
A representative dashboard shows quantum behavior honestly: full distributions, shot counts, expected-value overlays, confidence intervals, noise notes, and validation banners without pretending to run live hardware.
A quantum computer does not give one answer. You run a tiny program many times and count how often each possible answer comes up. This does exactly that, live, in your browser.
The circuit buttons choose a tiny quantum program. Each demonstrates one famous idea, and the card alongside names it and shows its wiring diagram.
Simulator shows the perfect textbook result. Hardware view adds the errors a real machine makes today. Flipping between them is the whole story of where quantum computing stands.
Each bar is one possible answer in 0s and 1s. Taller means it happened more often. The dashed line is where a perfect machine would land. The whisker is the honest margin of error.
Outcome distribution
Circuit
This run
Demonstration value
Production value
Same data, two presentations
Simulator results are computed live by a statevector engine in your browser, not pasted in.
Simulator and hardware view are never blurred, and the hardware view names its noise model.
The full distribution with counts, not just the most common answer.
Shot count is stated and every bar carries a 95 percent confidence interval.
Computed from this run against the ideal, and it changes when you re-run.
Hardware-view error comes from per-gate and per-readout rates applied to the circuit you see.
What this shows well and what shipping it would take are stated side by side.
Any advantage or certified-security claim is marked as requiring official validation.
Readiness assessment
A two-minute self-assessment to estimate current readiness, identify the lowest-scoring areas, and calculate a practical decide-by date.
Your quantum readiness
Your readiness by domain
Every domain scored, so you can see the shape of your posture, not just the average.
Where to focus first
Post-Quantum Architecture, Made Visible
Quantum readiness is not a single product decision. LOBOBYTE maps cryptography, data lifetime, platform dependencies, migration sequencing, and reporting so each decision supports the next.
Cryptographic Visibility
Identify where breakable public-key cryptography exists across certificates, tunnels, signing, access, and key management.
Data Lifetime Risk
Prioritize systems holding data that must remain confidential long enough to be exposed by harvest-now-decrypt-later activity.
Crypto-Agility
Evaluate where algorithms can be changed cleanly and where hardcoded dependencies create migration friction.
Vendor Alignment
Connect procurement, platform roadmaps, and supply chain dependencies to post-quantum standards and migration timing.
Reporting Discipline
Structure progress tracking so leadership can see readiness, blockers, deadline exposure, and next-step priorities.
LOBOBYTE approaches post-quantum readiness as an architecture and governance problem, not a disconnected checklist.
What we evaluate
Cryptographic Inventory
Where cryptography lives, what algorithms are in use, and which systems require priority attention.
Governance and Ownership
Whether post-quantum migration has executive ownership, funding, and operational accountability.
Risk and Data Lifetime
Which data must stay secret long enough to be exposed by harvest-now-decrypt-later activity.
Crypto-Agility
How cleanly systems can change algorithms without major redesign or operational disruption.
Vendor and Supply Chain
Roadmaps, dependencies, product readiness, and procurement requirements across key platforms.
Migration Planning
The practical sequencing of planning, procurement, testing, integration, and reporting.
Technical Readiness
Pilot activity, workload fit, interoperability constraints, and validation needs.
Compliance and Reporting
How progress can be documented against federal guidance and internal governance expectations.
Deliverables
Cryptographic Inventory and Gap Analysis
A structured view of exposed cryptographic dependencies and the practical gaps that need attention.
Readiness Scorecard and Decide-By Date
A score-driven snapshot with deadline math tied to system class, data lifetime, and migration lead time.
Prioritized Migration Roadmap
A phased plan that separates immediate decisions, architecture work, procurement, pilots, and reporting.
Engagement details
Timeline
Typically 2 to 4 weeks.
Investment
Most engagements are structured in the $10K to $20K range depending on environment complexity.
Best Fit
Organizations operating National Security Systems, federal and SLED systems, critical infrastructure, or any environment holding long-lived sensitive data.
Start with clarity before larger investment
This engagement gives your team a clearer view of what is exposed, what is ready, what needs migration planning, and what should happen next across cryptography, infrastructure, security, and reporting.
Discuss a Project