Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 29 references

A vendor-neutral ten-factor framework reorders the same SD-WAN vulnerabilities differently from a static severity score, with every input visible in the resulting queue.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A ten-factor weighted framework (PECR) reorders a synthetic five-case vulnerability queue compared with CVSS alone, but without evidence of real-world improvement.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Honest, well-scoped design artifact: the rank-divergence claim is arithmetically solid but untested against real SD-WAN telemetry; deserves a referee, not a desk reject. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01728 v1 pith:R2CW5WUJ submitted 2026-08-03 cs.NI

Predictive Exposure and Cryptographic Readiness: A Vendor-Neutral Framework, a, Bounded Multivocal Evidence Analysis, and Reproducible Synthetic Evaluation for SD-WAN Environments

Saeed Alam This is my paper
classification cs.NI
keywords vulnerability prioritizationSD-WANCVSSpredictive exploit scoringpost-quantum cryptographycryptographic readinesssynthetic evaluationrank divergence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to establish that a vendor-neutral, multi-signal framework called PECR can rank the same SD-WAN vulnerability-asset instances differently from a static severity score, and can do so in an auditable way. It builds the framework from a DOI-verified review of 19 recent studies and five current cryptography-transition standards, which together support ten normalized factors, one weighted 0-100 score, and a separate confidence measure. In a five-case synthetic test, the framework reorders the CVSS queue, with a substantial overlap change in the top three and one case moving three positions. The paper also tests stability: the order stays fixed under most single-factor removals and 87.5% of bounded weight changes. The stated boundary is that this shows mechanical feasibility and traceability, not better outcomes; operational validation would require real SD-WAN telemetry and an external ground truth.

Core claim

The paper proposes PECR, a vendor-neutral ten-factor additive scoring model that ranks a vulnerability on a specific SD-WAN asset at a specific time. The claim is that when the ten normalized factors—technical severity, predicted and observed exploitation, external exposure, attack-path reachability, attainable privilege, blast radius, operational consequence, systemic concentration, and cryptographic readiness—are weighted and summed, the resulting queue can differ from a static severity score while remaining fully decomposable: every input, source, timestamp, conversion rule, confidence value, and weight is visible. In the five synthetic cases, CVSS ordered A–D–B–E–C and PECR ordered A–B–E

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the PECR additive score: each vulnerability-asset record holds ten normalized factor values in [0,1], each with an explicit source, timestamp, conversion rule, and confidence. The 0-100 priority score is 100 times the weighted sum of the factors, and a separate confidence score is the weighted sum of per-factor confidence. Equal weights (0.10 each) are used only as a reproducible baseline. Missing data are not silently renormalized into the score: unknown values are shown as unknown, and lower and upper bounds are computed instead. This decomposable structure is what makes the ranking traceable in the paper's sense: any change in rank can be attributed to visible fac

Load-bearing premise

The framework's real-world usefulness rests on the assumption that the five synthetic cases and their assigned factor values stand in for real SD-WAN telemetry; the paper itself notes no included study validates prioritization on an operational SD-WAN dataset, so if real networks cannot supply exposure, path, privilege, blast-radius, and concentration at the needed fidelity, the demonstrated ranking difference does not apply to real remediation.

What would settle it

Run the PECR calculation on a real SD-WAN fleet for a quarter, using actual flow, topology, and identity data and a ground-truth outcome such as later exploitation or an independent expert ordering. If the PECR ranking and CVSS ranking agree as closely as the synthetic test disagreed, or if most factor values are missing in practice, the paper's central divergence claim fails as a statement about real prioritization.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Teams can see exactly why a case changed position: the worked example traces case D's drop to low reachability, privilege, blast radius, consequence, and concentration despite high severity.
  • Severity, exploitation odds, and organizational context can be kept as separate signals instead of being fused into one severity number.
  • The ranking is stable enough under weight changes to serve as a policy baseline: 87.5% of ±20% weight combinations preserved the exact order and top three.
  • A cryptographic-readiness factor can enter the queue without overwriting exploitation urgency, though the paper notes a two-lane queue or escalation rule may be needed when both compete.
  • Any operational claim requires the external-outcome validation step the synthetic test deliberately did not perform.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims: the same additive, provenance-bearing design could be ported to other software-defined infrastructure such as SASE or cloud edges if the topology and telemetry factors can be populated; the paper leaves that test open.
  • Beyond the paper's claims: the rank divergence implies that a single-number severity scale silently bundles at least three distinct decision questions—'how severe?', 'will it be exploited?', and 'what would it cost us?'—and the factor separation makes those trade-offs visible.
  • Beyond the paper's claims: a sharper falsifiable prediction than the paper makes is that on real data PECR should rank subsequently exploited vulnerabilities above unexploited ones more often than CVSS does, which can be tested once ground-truth exploitation labels exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PECR, a vendor-neutral framework for prioritizing vulnerabilities in SD-WAN environments using ten normalized factors (severity, predicted and observed exploitation, exposure, reachability, privilege, blast radius, consequence, concentration, cryptographic readiness) combined into a weighted additive score with a separate confidence measure. The factor set is motivated by a bounded multivocal evidence review of 19 DOI-verified publications and five NIST standards, with explicit limitations on the review's completeness. The evaluation compares equal-weight PECR with CVSS on five synthetic vulnerability-asset cases labeled as SD-WAN archetypes. The paper reports rank divergence metrics (tau_b = 0.40, MARS = 1.2, J3 = 0.5), exact test p = 0.483, ablation results, and sensitivity to 1,024 weight perturbations. The authors repeatedly and honestly state that the synthetic test does not establish operational effectiveness, better risk reduction, or human explainability. The arithmetic in Tables V-VII is internally consistent with Equations (1)-(3), and the paper provides the full input matrix for reproducibility.

Significance. If the framework is ultimately validated, it could provide a structured, traceable approach to incorporate exploitation, exposure, and organizational context into vulnerability prioritization, addressing a well-recognized limitation of severity-only scoring. The paper's strengths are its transparency and discipline: the complete synthetic data matrix is published, the calculation is fully specified, the sensitivity protocol is enumerated, and the claim boundaries are clearly drawn in Table I. The synthetic demonstration of rank divergence is internally correct, and the bounded evidence review is an honest attempt to map existing work onto the proposed factor set. However, the operational significance is largely prospective: five of the ten factors (exposure fidelity, reachability, privilege, blast radius, concentration) are populated by scenario assignment rather than measured telemetry, and the paper acknowledges that no included study validates prioritization on an operational SD-WAN dataset. As a design and reproducibility artifact, the paper is useful; as evidence about real SD-WAN prioritization, it is preliminary.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section VIII-B and Section VI-D] The central demonstration that 'PECR can produce a different and auditable ranking' rests on factor values that the paper itself identifies as unmeasured and unvalidated in SD-WAN settings. Section VIII-B states that exposure, path, privilege, blast-radius, and concentration values are scenario assignments, not IPFIX/NetFlow/log/routing/auth/firewall/proxy observations. Section VI-D further marks reachability, privilege, blast radius, and concentration as provisional due to absent direct SD-WAN evidence. Since Equation (3) applies equal weights to all ten factors, the rank divergence in the five-case example is driven entirely by these scenario-assigned inputs. The paper should either (a) provide a feasibility mapping showing how each factor can be populated from concrete SD-WAN data sources (e.g., specific telemetry fields, topology APIs, configuration stores) at a fidelity sufficient f
  2. [Section VII-C and Section IX-D] The paper's own missing-data and freshness rules (Section VII-C) are a substantive part of the framework, yet the evaluation never exercises them. Section IX-D acknowledges that old or missing telemetry was not tested because the matrix is static and complete. The weight-perturbation and factor-removal analyses vary the model parameters but not the input values. Given that five of the ten factors are provisional and may be noisy or unavailable in real deployments, a sensitivity analysis over plausible uncertainty bands for these inputs is more load-bearing than the weight-corner analysis currently reported. Please add a bounded perturbation of the input factor values (e.g., varying the scenario-assigned values by +/-0.1 or using interval bounds) and report how often the rank order and J3 change. Alternatively, state explicitly that the robustness claims are limited to weight perturbation
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IX-D] The ablation procedure ('single-factor removal') should specify whether the remaining weights are renormalized to sum to 1. The current text says only 'removing predicted likelihood or privilege changed the middle order,' which is ambiguous. State the renormalization rule for reproducibility.
  2. [Equation (4)] The confidence measure C_i(t) is defined but never computed or reported in the synthetic evaluation. Since the paper emphasizes a separate confidence value, at least show its value for one or two cases, or state explicitly that confidence is not exercised in the synthetic test.
  3. [Section IX-B] The exact two-sided p-value for Kendall's tau with n=5 is correctly reported as 58/120 = 0.483, but the derivation is not shown. A footnote explaining that the count comes from permutation enumeration (or that tau = 1 - d/5 with the Mahonian counts) would help readers verify the result.
  4. [Title and abstract] The phrase 'Bounded Multivocal Evidence Analysis' may be misread as a formal multivocal literature review. Since the corpus was assembled from a supplied CSV plus DOI-led expansion without a reproducible search log, consider using 'bounded evidence synthesis' or adding a parenthetical that the review is not a full MVL study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the synthetic demonstration is an explicitly labeled worked example, not a fitted prediction or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that equal-weight PECR can produce a different and traceable ranking than CVSS alone in the five synthetic cases. This claim is an arithmetic existence proof: Equation (3) defines PECR as a weighted sum of ten factors, the factor matrix is fully published in Table V, and the resulting ranks and metrics are computed directly from those inputs. No parameter is fitted to any outcome, no hidden variable is tuned to force the reported tau_b/MARS/J3 values, and no result is renamed as a prediction after being used as an input. The paper is explicit about the boundary: Section VIII-B states 'Telemetry: Exposure, path, privilege, blast-radius, and concentration values are scenario assignments. They are not measured IPFIX, NetFlow, event-log, routing, authentication, firewall, or proxy observations,' and Section IX-C states 'No external outcome or secondary operational baseline exists for the synthetic corpus. H2 is therefore not tested.' The conclusion is likewise limited: 'PECR can produce a different and auditable ranking. This synthetic test does not prove better operational results or better human understanding.' The review-derived ten-factor model is supported by 19 DOI-verified studies, none authored by the present author, so there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The fact that the divergence is, in part, a consequence of deliberately chosen factor values is not circularity: the claim is explicitly conditional on the stated assumptions and is not generalized to real SD-WAN telemetry. The paper also provides honest validity-threat sections (e.g., 'Synthetic-data validity' and 'Unit-of-analysis mismatch') rather than suppressing limitations. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the correctness of the scoring arithmetic and on the assumption that the synthetic factor matrix represents plausible SD-WAN conditions. The weights are a policy choice, the factor set is a research hypothesis, and the input values are constructed, so the paper's results are a demonstration of mechanics, not an empirical finding.

free parameters (2)
  • benchmark weights w_j = 0.10 for each of ten factors
    Equal weights chosen by hand as an uncalibrated baseline; Section VII-C says it is not a recommended operational default.
  • freshness decay lifetimes L = 7 days (EPSS), 24 hours (exposure/topology), 90 days (C-BOM)
    Hand-selected in Section VII-C; not empirically calibrated and not used in the synthetic evaluation.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The ten factors can be combined additively without modeling interactions (Equation 3).
    No interaction or correlation terms are included; the bounded review does not test whether an additive model is appropriate.
  • domain assumption The CVSS-only baseline equals the normalized base severity score.
    Section VIII-B states the normalized technical-severity factor provides the CVSS-only order; this excludes CVSS environmental and temporal metrics.
  • domain assumption The 19-study corpus is sufficient to justify the ten-factor research specification.
    Section VI-A documents missing search logs, duplicate counts, and reviewer agreement; the paper calls the review 'bounded' and 'not exhaustive'.
  • domain assumption All ten factor values can be measured on a 0-1 scale in real SD-WAN environments.
    The synthetic matrix in Table V assigns all 50 values; Section VIII-B states they are scenario assignments, not measured telemetry.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictive Exposure and Cryptographic Readiness: A Vendor-Neutral Framework, a, Bounded Multivocal Evidence Analysis, and Reproducible Synthetic Evaluation for SD-WAN Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R2CW5WUJ

@misc{pith2026260801728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictive Exposure and Cryptographic Readiness: A Vendor-Neutral Framework, a, Bounded Multivocal Evidence Analysis, and Reproducible Synthetic Evaluation for SD-WAN Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R2CW5WUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01728}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

SD-WAN teams often use static severity scores to decide what to fix first. These scores do not show live exploitation, network exposure, attack paths, business impact, or cryptographic migration risk. This study asks whether a vendor-neutral PECR framework can produce a different and more traceable ranking than CVSS alone. We reviewed 19 DOI-verified publications from 2020-2026 and five current NIST documents. The review supported ten normalized factors, one weighted score, and a separate confidence measure. We then compared equal-weight PECR with CVSS in five synthetic cases. The tests used Kendall's $\tau_b$, mean absolute rank shift (MARS), top-three Jaccard overlap ($J_3$), factor removal, and bounded weight changes. CVSS ranked the cases A-D-B-E-C. PECR ranked them A-B-E-C-D. The results were $\tau_b = 0.40$, MARS = 1.2, and $J_3 = 0.50$. The exact $\tau$ test was not significant ($p = 0.483$) because the sample had only five cases. The PECR order remained unchanged in 87.5% of 1,024 weight combinations. It also remained unchanged in eight of ten single-factor removal tests. The evidence supports separate measures for severity, exploitation, and organizational context. Evidence for live SD-WAN attack paths and daily PQC triage is still limited. PECR can produce a different and auditable ranking. This synthetic test does not prove better operational results or better human understanding.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021. https: //doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 2020

  2. [2]

    Kitchenham and S

    B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering, Version 2.3, EBSE-2007-01, Keele University and Durham University, 2007. EBSE systematic-review guidelines

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering,

    V. Garousi, M. Felderer, and M. V. Mäntylä, “Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 106, pp. 101– 121, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.09.006

    doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.09.006 2019

  4. [4]

    Analysis of vulnerability severity and exploit probability scoring frameworks: CVSS and EPSS,

    E. H. Tan, I. E. Unal, S. Rhea, and U. Tatar, “Analysis of vulnerability severity and exploit probability scoring frameworks: CVSS and EPSS,” in Proc. 2025 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Sym- posium (SIEDS), pp. 54–59, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS65500. 2025.11021216

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Vulnerability management chaining: An integrated framework for efficient cybersecurity risk prioritization,

    N. Shimizu and M. Hashimoto, “Vulnerability management chaining: An integrated framework for efficient cybersecurity risk prioritization,” IEEE Access, vol. 14, pp. 31407–31424, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2026.3665768

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Automated context- aware vulnerability risk management for patch prioritization,

    V. Ahmadi Mehri, P. Arlos, and E. Casalicchio, “Automated context- aware vulnerability risk management for patch prioritization,” Elec- tronics, vol. 11, no. 21, Art. no. 3580, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ electronics11213580

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Context-aware enterprise vulnerability priori- tization and remediation recommendations using semantic learning,

    S. P. Dubey and S. Maity, “Context-aware enterprise vulnerability priori- tization and remediation recommendations using semantic learning,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning (ICSADL), pp. 1137–1142, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSADL67539.2026.11451870

    work page arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Explainable risk-based vulnerability prioritization in hybrid cloud: Integrating CVSS, EPSS, and CISA KEV with asset criticality signals,

    K. G. Agyei et al., “Explainable risk-based vulnerability prioritization in hybrid cloud: Integrating CVSS, EPSS, and CISA KEV with asset criticality signals,” World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 2044–2052, 2026. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2026. 30.1.1006

    work page doi:10.30574/wjarr.2026 2044

  9. [9]

    Adaptive vulnerability prioritization with MITRE ATT&CK integration,

    Shreyas A and Arun Kumar B. R., “Adaptive vulnerability prioritization with MITRE ATT&CK integration,” in Proc. 2025 IEEE 17th Int. Conf. Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN), pp. 733–739, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/CICN67655.2025.11368172

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    A machine learning-driven visual analytics framework for cybersecurity risk prioritization using the CISA KEV catalog,

    A. Anwer and L. Ali, “A machine learning-driven visual analytics framework for cybersecurity risk prioritization using the CISA KEV catalog,” European Modern Studies Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 705–726,

    work page

  11. [11]

    CVSS + EPSS combined vulnerability prioritisation in SME- focused ITAM SaaS platforms: A practitioner’s framework,

    S. R. Sri, “CVSS + EPSS combined vulnerability prioritisation in SME- focused ITAM SaaS platforms: A practitioner’s framework,” SSRN Electronic Journal, preprint, 2026. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6462364

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.6462364 2026

  12. [12]

    Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS),

    J. Jacobs, S. Romanosky, B. Edwards, I. Adjerid, and M. Roytman, “Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS),” Digital Threats: Research and Practice, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–17, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3436242

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Conflicting scores, confusing signals: An empirical study of vulnerability scoring systems,

    V. Koscinski, M. Nelson, A. Okutan, R. Falso, and M. Mirakhorli, “Conflicting scores, confusing signals: An empirical study of vulnerability scoring systems,” in Proc. 32nd ACM Conf. Computer and Communi- cations Security (CCS), pp. 1904–1918, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3719027.3765210

    work page arXiv 1904

  14. [14]

    Measuring the accuracy ofsoftwarevulnerability assessments: Experiments withstudents and professionals,

    L. Allodi, M. Cremonini, F. Massacci, and W. Shim, “Measuring the accuracy ofsoftwarevulnerability assessments: Experiments withstudents and professionals,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1063–1094, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09797-4 14

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-019-09797-4 2020

  15. [15]

    Early and realistic exploitability prediction of just-disclosed software vulnerabilities: How reliable can it be?

    E. Iannone, G. Sellitto, E. Iaccarino, F. Ferrucci, A. De Lucia, and F. Palomba, “Early and realistic exploitability prediction of just-disclosed software vulnerabilities: How reliable can it be?” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1–41, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654443

    work page doi:10.1145/3654443 2024

  16. [16]

    Enhancing IoT vulnerability prioritization using real-time EPSS and SSVC decision tree modeling,

    O. Briliyant, Girinoto, M. Syahral, and R. Purwoko, “Enhancing IoT vulnerability prioritization using real-time EPSS and SSVC decision tree modeling,” in Proc. 2025 IEEE 2nd Int. Conf. Cryptography, Informatics, and Cybersecurity (ICoCICs), pp. 185–191, 2025. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ICoCICs68032.2025.11383863

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    A hybrid AI model for automated vulnerability prioritization based on risk scoring,

    K. Chhillar, S. Shrivastava, R. K. Saini, and A. Verma, “A hybrid AI model for automated vulnerability prioritization based on risk scoring,” in Proc. 2025 Int. Conf. Digital Innovations for Sustainable Solutions (ICDISS), pp. 1–6, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDISS68238.2025. 11320782

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Ransomware-aware analysis of exploited vulnerabilities and remediation dynamics,

    B. Moraghebi and L. Ali, “Ransomware-aware analysis of exploited vulnerabilities and remediation dynamics,” European Modern Studies Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 727–45, 2026. https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj. 10(2).2026.41

    doi:10.59573/emsj 2026

  19. [19]

    Knowledge-driven prediction of vulnerability co-exploitation,

    Y. Yu, K. Luo, X. Hu, and Y. Zhang, “Knowledge-driven prediction of vulnerability co-exploitation,” in Proc. 2025 IEEE 6th Int. Seminar Arti- ficial Intelligence, Networking and Information Technology (AINIT), pp. 1987–1993, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/AINIT65432.2025.11035711

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Transformation of vulnerability management through artificial intelligence: An overview of generative and learning models,

    G. Siewruk and M. Berej, “Transformation of vulnerability management through artificial intelligence: An overview of generative and learning models,” IEEE Access, vol. 14, pp. 24732–24752, 2026. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3663784

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Vulnerability management as an organizational and technical process,

    Y. M. Lysetskyi, “Vulnerability management as an organizational and technical process,” Mathematical Machines and Systems, no. 2, pp. 38–45,

    work page

  22. [22]

    Considerations for vulnerability management in the automotive industry,

    D. K. Oka and R. S. Vadamalu, “Considerations for vulnerability management in the automotive industry,” SAE Technical Paper 2026-26- 0626, 2026. https://doi.org/10.4271/2026-26-0626

    work page doi:10.4271/2026-26-0626 2026

  23. [23]

    https://doi.org/10.34121/1028-9763-2026-2-38-45

    work page doi:10.34121/1028-9763-2026-2-38-45 2026

  24. [24]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard, FIPS 204, Aug. 2024. https://doi.org/10.6028/ NIST.FIPS.204

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard, FIPS 203, Aug. 2024. https: //doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.203

    doi:10.6028/nist.fips.203 2024

  26. [26]

    Moody, R

    D. Moody, R. Perlner, A. Regenscheid, A. Robinson, and D. Cooper, Transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards, NIST IR 8547 Initial Public Draft, Nov. 2024. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8547.ipd

    doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8547.ipd 2024

  27. [27]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Standard, FIPS 205, Aug. 2024. https://doi.org/10.6028/ NIST.FIPS.205

    work page 2024

  28. [29]

    Barker et al., Considerations for Achieving Crypto Agility: Strategies and Practices, NIST CSWP 39upd1, updated June 2026

    E. Barker et al., Considerations for Achieving Crypto Agility: Strategies and Practices, NIST CSWP 39upd1, updated June 2026. https://doi.org/ 10.6028/NIST.CSWP.39-upd1

    work page doi:10.6028/nist.cswp.39-upd1 2026

  29. [2026]

    https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.10(2).2026.40

    work page doi:10.59573/emsj.10(2).2026.40 2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.