Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper provides a formal justification for a multiplicative model of HNDL (Harvest Now, Decrypt Later) compromise probability in quantum cryptography, deriving it from assumptions about adversarial behavior and value decay. It demonstrates that the HNDL compromise probability factorizes into temporal hazard, cryptographic vulnerability/operational exposure, and a defense-attack intensity ratio. The authors argue that additive scoring frameworks are fundamentally incapable of capturing the interaction between cryptographic vulnerability and operational exposure.
Forget additive risk scores: a multiplicative model of quantum cryptographic exposure is structurally justified by adversarial behavior and value decay dynamics.
An adversary copies your encrypted traffic today and waits for a quantum computer to decrypt it later. How exposed are you? We show that the functional form of the answer is not merely a calibration choice -- it is structurally justified by three assumptions about adversarial production and value-decay dynamics. Under those assumptions, the HNDL compromise probability factorises into a temporal hazard, a multiplicative cryptographic-vulnerability and operational-exposure term, and a saturation denominator governed by the defense-attack intensity ratio; the marginal sensitivity to each dimension is endogenous to the organisation's position in the vulnerability-exposure plane, not a fixed global constant. Additive scoring frameworks cannot reproduce this structure because the interaction between cryptographic vulnerability and operational exposure is absent by construction, regardless of calibration. The resulting framework provides a structurally grounded basis for operational HNDL exposure prioritisation under partial observability.