The League Table of Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC)
As you should know, all of our existing public key methods (ECC, RSA and ElGamal) can be cracked with the advent of quantum computers. Over the next few years, we need to replace them with methods that are quantum robust. This includes lattice methods, code-based methods, isogenies, hash-based methods and multivariate quadratic (MQ) methods. So, which method will win the PQC competition? Well, let’s give them a test. For this, I will use the liboqs library, and perform a series of tests for key exchange (key generation and key encapsulation) and digital signing (key generation, signature signing and signature verification).
Key Exchange
First up, it is key generation. The contenders are the lattice methods (Kyber, Saber, NTRU and FrodoKEM), the Code-based methods (McEliece, HQC and BIKE) and Isogeny-based methods (SIKE and SIDH). Overall, for key generation, it’s Kyber out in front, and which is much faster than the other lattice methods of Saber and NTRU [here]:
In the relegation position for key generation we have SIKE (isogeny-based), SIDH(isogeny-based) and McEliece (Code-based) [here]:
