Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 45 references

Network-wide Quantum Key Distribution with Onion Routing Relay

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Onion Routing Relay uses layered post-quantum encryption to distribute QKD secrets that stay hidden from malicious intermediate nodes, with key-delivery time competitive against standard relay schemes.

desk verdict Simple integration of onion routing with QKD key relay; useful performance data, but the confidentiality claim collapses without authenticated KEM negotiation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13239 v1 pith:EPH2NK3H submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CR

Pedro Otero-García , David Pérez-Castro , Manuel Fernández-Veiga , Ana Fernández-Vilas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords quantumkeydistributiononionroutingpost-quantumcryptographyrelaytrustednodeKybernetworksecurityqualityofservice
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes and evaluates Onion Routing Relay (ORR), a protocol for sharing a secret key between distant nodes of a quantum key distribution (QKD) network that have no direct quantum channel. ORR wraps the secret in successive layers of post-quantum encryption, one layer per intermediate relay, so that each relay removes one layer but never sees the plaintext secret; only the intended destination unwraps the final layer. The paper claims this prevents a single malicious intermediate node from learning the distributed secret, a known weakness of the standard key-relay and trusted-node approaches, while preserving routing anonymity. Using a simulation over circuits of 3 to 11 nodes, it measures encryption time and total distribution time for ORR, key relay, and trusted-node models, and finds ORR competitive in overall distribution time even though its encryption is 10 to 40 times slower. If the claim holds, QKD networks can provide end-to-end key confidentiality without requiring every intermediate node to be trusted.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the layered onion cipher constructed from per-hop post-quantum symmetric keys. The initiator uses Kyber-768 encapsulation to negotiate a distinct symmetric key with every node on the circuit, then encrypts the shared secret successively outward: first with the destination's key, then with each intermediate node's key in reverse path order, and finally transports the resulting onion hop-by-hop under QKD keys shared with each neighbor. Each relay decrypts one layer with its own symmetric key, learns only its predecessor and successor, and forwards the remaining ciphertext; the destination removes the last layer and recovers the secret. This layering keeps the secret hidden from malicious intermediates, gives the protocol its anonymity property, and is the direct source of the measured encryption overhead compared with the simple XOR operations used by key relay and trusted-node models.

What would settle it

Measure per-hop key-delivery times between commercial QKD nodes over practical fiber distances while running ORR, key relay, and trusted-node implementations; if realistic transmission and processing times are comparable to ORR's roughly 45 to 78 microseconds of added encryption instead of milliseconds, ORR's distribution time will not stay competitive with key relay, and the paper's QoS conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Onion Routing Relay protocol delivers a shared secret between distant QKD nodes with end-to-end confidentiality and routing anonymity, while keeping key-distribution time competitive with conventional key-relay (KR) and trusted-node (TN) schemes. In ORR, the initiator first negotiates a symmetric post-quantum key with each node on the path using Kyber-768 encapsulation, then encrypts the secret in successive layers — innermost with the destination's key, then with each intermediate node's key outward — and transports the resulting onion hop-by-hop under QKD keys. Each intermediate node removes its own layer with its symmetric key, sees only the next hop's ciphertext, and forwards it; the destination removes the last layer and recovers the secret. The paper compares this against KR, where each hop decrypts and re-encrypts the secret, and TN, where a central trusted node processes all keys, and reports that ORR's encryption cost is 10 to 40 times higher than KR/TN but that total distribution time stays within about 60 microseconds of KR for an 11-node circuit. It concludes that in realistic QKD networks, where per-hop transmission times are expected to rise from microseconds to milliseconds, ORR's extra encryption overhead becomes negligible, giving security improvement without meaningful quality-of-service loss.

Load-bearing premise

The feasibility conclusion rests on the assumption that real inter-node transmission times in a QKD network will be in the millisecond range and will dominate key-distribution time, making ORR's extra tens of microseconds of layered encryption negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A QKD network using ORR no longer needs every intermediate node to be trusted: a compromised relay that decrypts its QKD layer still cannot recover the distributed secret, because the secret is protected by the next node's post-quantum key.
  • ORR's layered encryption conceals the identity of the destination from intermediate relays, so an adversary observing one relay cannot tell where the secret is ultimately going.
  • ORR and key relay send the same number of hop-by-hop messages, so ORR scales with path length like key relay; the simulation reports roughly 541 microseconds average distribution time for an 11-node circuit, between key relay's about 480 microseconds and trusted-node's about 655 microseconds.
  • The added encryption is spent once when the onion is built at the initiator and once per hop when each relay strips a layer, so the per-secret overhead is bounded by circuit length rather than growing with the amount of key material distributed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If ORR were combined with the integrity and authentication extensions of provably secure onion routing, the end-to-end authentication the current implementation omits could be added without changing the layering mechanism; per-hop signature verification would add a further, likely still sub-millisecond, cost.
  • A direct test of the feasibility claim would be to run ORR on an emulated QKD network with realistic fiber latencies and bandwidth; the paper's reasoning predicts the distribution-time gap between ORR and key relay will shrink as per-hop transmission time grows, and this is measurable without new quantum hardware.
  • The security guarantee depends on the PQC negotiation between initiator and each node being authentic; if an adversary could substitute keys during negotiation, confidentiality would degrade to that of plain key relay, so real deployments should authenticate the Kyber negotiation over the QKD-authenticated channel.
  • The same onion-encapsulation technique could be reused for other quantum-safe communication tasks over QKD backbones, such as anonymous message delivery or private information retrieval, since it only requires per-hop symmetric keys distributed via existing QKD key management.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Onion Routing Relay (ORR), a key-distribution protocol for QKD networks that combines key relay, onion-routing layered encryption, and PQC-KEM to share a secret between distant nodes without exposing it to intermediate nodes. The authors compare ORR against key-relay (KR) and trusted-node (TN) models in a threaded C simulation that uses a single real QKD pair (Cerberis XGR) as a key source. They report that ORR's encryption overhead is tens of microseconds and that the overall key distribution time remains comparable to KR, concluding that ORR offers competitive QoS while preventing malicious intermediate nodes from learning the secret. The paper also discusses anonymity and future integration of integrity and authenticity mechanisms.

Significance. If the security claim were established, ORR would be a meaningful step toward robust QKDN key relay, since current KR and TN approaches require all intermediate nodes to be trusted. The performance study has several strengths: the implementation is publicly available, the measurements are internally consistent, standard cryptographic libraries (OpenSSL, OQS) are used, no free parameters are fitted, and the comparison against two baselines is appropriate. However, the security contribution is not proven: the protocol as specified omits authentication of the KEM negotiation, so a malicious first hop can defeat the confidentiality claim. The abstract also promises integrity and authenticity that the paper explicitly defers. The performance-based feasibility conclusion depends on an untested extrapolation from thread-switch latencies to millisecond network delays. These issues affect the central claims, but they are addressable in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV] The confidentiality claim is not supported because the PQC-KEM negotiation is unauthenticated. The protocol description states that 'Ni initiates a negotiation process with each Nint and Nd using a PQC-KEM to establish a symmetric key K_{sim}^{PQC} with each node in the circuit,' but no mechanism binds a public key to the intended node, and Section IV explicitly states that 'integrity and message signing mechanisms are omitted since they fall outside the scope.' A malicious first hop M can therefore substitute its own KEM keys during the negotiation with downstream nodes, learn the symmetric keys Ni believes it shares with Nint and Nd, and later peel every onion layer as the secret passes through, obtaining S. Section IV.A's assertion that the secret is protected by 'the symmetric PQC key of the next node' holds only if that key is authentically bound to the next node. The paper must either specify an authentication mechanism (e.g., an out-of-band public-key infrastructure or use of existing QKD keys for authentication) or explicitly state the trust assumption under which the claim is valid, and revise the security conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract promises that ORR 'increases the security by enhancing confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, and anonymity,' but Section IV states that 'integrity and message signing mechanisms are omitted since they fall outside the scope of this paper.' The claims of integrity and authenticity are therefore not fulfilled by the protocol as described. Either implement the missing mechanisms or revise the abstract and conclusions to claim only confidentiality and anonymity under the stated trust model.
  3. [Section VII and Section V] The feasibility conclusion that 'in a real scenario in which the message sending time is likely to increase from µs to ms ... ORR can have a competitive QoS' is an untested extrapolation. The simulation transmits messages through shared variables with thread context switches on a single machine and uses a single physical QKD pair as a key source; it does not model network delays, bandwidth constraints, packet loss, or multi-hop transmission. The claim that ms-scale transmission will dominate the tens-of-microseconds encryption overhead may be true, but it is not demonstrated by the experiments. Provide a sensitivity analysis or a network-level simulation with realistic delay parameters, or explicitly present the conclusion as a conjecture.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains two prose errors: 'ORR pretends to avoid the security risks' should read 'aims to avoid' or 'purports to avoid,' and 'Results show that the performance of the ORR model, against current key-relay (KR) and trusted-node (TN) approaches' lacks a main verb.
  2. [Throughout] Decimal numbers are rendered inconsistently: '1,5 to 3µs' and '45,35 µs' use commas, while other places use decimal points; choose one convention.
  3. [Section VI] Figures 2 and 3 report averages without error bars, confidence intervals, or the number of repetitions; add this information to support the quantitative comparisons.
  4. [Section IV] The notation K^{PQC}_{sim}(Nint,N) and similar expressions are ambiguous; define the indices (e.g., K_{sim}^{PQC}(N_i, N_j)) and specify the order of layered encryption clearly.
  5. [Section I] The phrase '2n to2 n/2' is a typesetting artifact; it should read '2^n to 2^{n/2}'.
  6. [References] References [36] and [40] cite the same paper by Kuhn, Beck, and Strufe; use a single reference or clarify the distinction.
  7. [Section V] Section V states that a PRNG substitutes for the unavailable QRNG; since the protocol's security rests on quantum randomness, the paper should state whether this substitution affects the security evaluation or only the performance measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ORR is an implementation/measurement study with no derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any predicted quantity from fitted parameters or from a definition that presupposes the conclusion. The ORR protocol is specified (layered encryption with QKD keys plus PQC-KEM shared keys) and then measured against KR and TN baselines in a C simulation using real cryptographic libraries; the performance numbers are direct measurements rather than quantities constructed from the model's own assumptions. The security argument is informal and arguably incomplete because the PQC-KEM negotiation is unauthenticated and integrity/signing mechanisms are explicitly omitted, so a malicious first hop could impersonate downstream nodes; however, that is a correctness or threat-model gap, not circular reasoning. The conclusion that ORR would have competitive QoS in real networks depends on the unmeasured assumption that transmission times grow from microseconds to milliseconds, but extrapolation from an assumption is not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations by the authors, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from prior work. The central claims are therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, even though they may be vulnerable on security and realism grounds.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol ORR is a composition of existing cryptographic mechanisms (QKD, Kyber KEM, onion routing). No new physical entities, particles, or forces are introduced. The free-parameter list is empty because the reported numbers are direct measurements, not fits.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption QKD between adjacent nodes establishes information-theoretically secure shared keys.
    All three models (KR, TN, ORR) rely on QKD keys for point-to-point encryption; this is stated in Section I and used in Section IV.
  • domain assumption Kyber-768 (ML-KEM) is secure against quantum-computational adversaries.
    The onion layers in ORR are encrypted with symmetric keys derived from Kyber-768 encapsulations, so the confidentiality guarantee assumes this PQC scheme is sound (Section III-C).
  • domain assumption The thread-based simulation with shared variables faithfully represents the relative timing of network message passing.
    Section V describes simulating each node as a thread; the measured distribution times include thread context switches, which the paper interprets as a proxy for transmission delays.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Network-wide Quantum Key Distribution with Onion Routing Relay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EPH2NK3H

@misc{pith2026250513239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Network-wide Quantum Key Distribution with Onion Routing Relay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EPH2NK3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13239}
}
read the original abstract

The advancement of quantum computing threatens classical cryptographic methods, necessitating the development of secure quantum key distribution (QKD) solutions for QKD Networks (QKDN). In this paper, a novel key distribution protocol, Onion Routing Relay (ORR), that integrates onion routing (OR) with post-quantum cryptography (PQC) in a key-relay (KR) model is evaluated for QKDNs. This approach increases the security by enhancing confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, and anonymity in quantum-secure communications. By employing PQC-based encapsulation, ORR pretends to avoid the security risks posed by intermediate malicious nodes and ensures end-to-end security. Results show that the performance of the ORR model, against current key-relay (KR) and trusted-node (TN) approaches, demonstrating its feasibility and applicability in high-security environments maintaining a consistent Quality of Service (QoS). The results show that while ORR incurs higher encryption overhead, it provides substantial security improvements without significantly impacting the overall key distribution time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simplified example of the Onion Routing Relay key distribution model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Encryption time of the different models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Key distribution time of the different models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Roadmap to fault tolerant quantum computation using topological qubit arrays,

    D. Aasenet al., “Roadmap to fault tolerant quantum computation using topological qubit arrays,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2502.12252

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,

    R. Acharyaet al., “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13687, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM Rev., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inProc. 8th Annu. ACM Symp. Theory Comput., 1996, pp. 212–219

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems,

    R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adleman, “A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems,”Commun. ACM, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 120–126, 1978

    1978

  6. [6]

    Multiuser cryptographic techniques,

    W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman, “Multiuser cryptographic techniques,” in Proc. National Computer Conference, 1976, pp. 109–112

    work page 1976

  7. [7]

    The state of elliptic curve cryptography,

    N. Koblitz, A. Menezes, and S. Vanstone, “The state of elliptic curve cryptography,”Designs, Codes and Cryptography, vol. 19, pp. 173–193, 2000

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Advanced encryption standard (AES),

    M. J. Dworkinet al., “Advanced encryption standard (AES),” 2001

    work page 2001

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Hash functions,

    NIST, “Hash functions,” n.d., accessed: 2025-02-25. [Online]. Available: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/hash-functions

    2025

  2. [10]

    An update on quantum cryptography,

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “An update on quantum cryptography,” 1984

    1984

  3. [11]

    Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,

    A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 67, no. 6, p. 661, 1991

    1991

  4. [12]

    Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, “Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 68, pp. 557–559, 1992. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.557

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    Recent progress in quantum key distribution network deployments and standards,

    M. Stanleyet al., “Recent progress in quantum key distribution network deployments and standards,”J. Phys.: Conf. Ser ., vol. 2416, p. 012001, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link,

    D. Mainet al., “Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link,”Nature, pp. 1–6, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Module-lattice-based key-encapsulation mechanism standard,

    NIST, “Module-lattice-based key-encapsulation mechanism standard,” Tech. Rep. FIPS 203, Aug. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://csrc.nist. gov/pubs/fips/203/final

    2024

  8. [16]

    Module-lattice-based digital signature standard,

    ——, “Module-lattice-based digital signature standard,” Tech. Rep. FIPS 204, Aug. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/204/ final

    2024

  9. [17]

    Stateless hash-based digital signature standard,

    ——, “Stateless hash-based digital signature standard,” Tech. Rep. FIPS 205, Aug. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/205/ final

    2024

  10. [18]

    Building the quantum network,

    C. Elliott, “Building the quantum network,”New J. Phys., vol. 4, p. 46, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    Quantum relays for long distance quantum cryptography,

    D. Collins, N. Gisin, and H. De Riedmatten, “Quantum relays for long distance quantum cryptography,”J. Mod. Opt., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 735– 753, 2005

    2005

  12. [20]

    Key management systems for large-scale quantum key distribution networks,

    P. Jameset al., “Key management systems for large-scale quantum key distribution networks,” inProc. 18th Int. Conf. on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES ’23), 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1145/3600160.3605050

    2023

  13. [21]

    Quantum key distribution networks – Key management,

    ITU, “Quantum key distribution networks – Key management,” ITU-T, Tech. Rep. Y .3803, Dec. 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Onion routing,

    D. Goldschlag, M. Reed, and P. Syverson, “Onion routing,”Commun. ACM, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 39–41, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    Long-range QKD without trusted nodes is not possible with current technology,

    B. Huttneret al., “Long-range QKD without trusted nodes is not possible with current technology,”npj Quantum Inf., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 108, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Hacking the least trusted node: Indirect eavesdropping in quantum networks,

    S. Rasset al., “Hacking the least trusted node: Indirect eavesdropping in quantum networks,”IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Parallel trusted node approach for satellite quantum key distribution,

    G. De Santiset al., “Parallel trusted node approach for satellite quantum key distribution,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08562, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    End-to-end QKD network with non-localized trust,

    D. L. Calsiet al., “End-to-end QKD network with non-localized trust,”

  19. [27]

    Relaxing trust assumptions on quantum key distribution networks,

    N. Vyas and P. Mendes, “Relaxing trust assumptions on quantum key distribution networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13136, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Post-quantum TLS without handshake signatures,

    P. Schwabe, D. Stebila, and T. Wiggers, “Post-quantum TLS without handshake signatures,” inProc. 2020 ACM CCS, 2020, pp. 1461–1480

    2020

  21. [29]

    QTrustNet virtual private network (VPN): Enhancing security in the quantum era,

    H. Shimet al., “QTrustNet virtual private network (VPN): Enhancing security in the quantum era,”IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Towards the quantum-safe web: Benchmarking post- quantum TLS,

    R. Rioset al., “Towards the quantum-safe web: Benchmarking post- quantum TLS,”IEEE Network, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Towards efficient and secure quantum-classical commu- nication networks,

    P. Zenget al., “Towards efficient and secure quantum-classical commu- nication networks,” in2024 IEEE TPS-ISA, pp. 520–523

  24. [32]

    Experimental authentication of quantum key distribu- tion with post-quantum cryptography,

    L.-J. Wanget al., “Experimental authentication of quantum key distribu- tion with post-quantum cryptography,”npj Quantum Inf., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 67, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Practical hybrid PQC-QKD protocols with enhanced security and performance,

    P. Zenget al., “Practical hybrid PQC-QKD protocols with enhanced security and performance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01086, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Joint QKD-post-quantum cryptosystems,

    I. B. Djordjevic, “Joint QKD-post-quantum cryptosystems,”IEEE Ac- cess, vol. 8, pp. 154708–154712, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Combined quantum and post-quantum security for earth- satellite channels,

    A. Raniet al., “Combined quantum and post-quantum security for earth- satellite channels,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14240, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Breaking and (partially) fixing provably secure onion routing,

    C. Kuhn, M. Beck, and T. Strufe, “Breaking and (partially) fixing provably secure onion routing,” in2020 IEEE SP, pp. 168–185

  29. [37]

    Onion routing with replies,

    C. Kuhnet al., “Onion routing with replies,” inASIACRYPT 2021, pp. 573–604

    2021

  30. [38]

    Worst-case to average-case reductions for module lattices,

    A. Langlois and D. Stehl ´e, “Worst-case to average-case reductions for module lattices,”Des. Codes Crypt., vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 565–599, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    A concrete treatment of Fiat-Shamir signatures in the quantum random-oracle model,

    E. Kiltz, V . Lyubashevsky, and C. Schaffner, “A concrete treatment of Fiat-Shamir signatures in the quantum random-oracle model,” in EUROCRYPT 2018, pp. 552–586

    2018

  32. [40]

    Breaking and (partially) fixing provably secure onion routing,

    C. Kuhn, M. Beck, and T. Strufe, “Breaking and (partially) fixing provably secure onion routing,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/1910.13772

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cerberis XGR QKD system,

    ID Quantique, “Cerberis XGR QKD system,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.idquantique.com/quantum-safe-security/ products/cerberis-xgr-qkd-system/

    2021

  34. [42]

    Quantum Key Distribution (QKD); Protocol and data format of REST-based key delivery API,

    ETSI, “Quantum Key Distribution (QKD); Protocol and data format of REST-based key delivery API,” Tech. Rep., 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.etsi.org/

    2019

  35. [43]

    OpenSSL: The Open Source Toolkit for SSL/TLS

    OpenSSL Project, “OpenSSL: The Open Source Toolkit for SSL/TLS.” [Online]. Available: https://www.openssl.org/

  36. [44]

    Open Quantum Safe (OQS) Project

    Open Quantum Safe Project, “Open Quantum Safe (OQS) Project.” [Online]. Available: https://openquantumsafe.org/

  37. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17547

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17547

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.