Stay Up to Date
Subscribe to our newsletter
Most organizations are treating quantum security as a 2030 problem. That framing is wrong, and adversaries are counting on it.
The quantum threat doesn't require a working quantum computer to be active now. State-sponsored actors are already intercepting encrypted data: financial records, M&A communications, healthcare data, government intelligence, and stockpiling it with the expectation that a future quantum computer will decrypt it. This strategy is known as "harvest now, decrypt later" (HNDL), and it has been publicly acknowledged as an active threat by the FBI, CISA, and NIST.
The data your organization transmitted this year is already exposed in this sense. The window of risk opened the moment that data entered circulation, not when a quantum computer eventually arrives.

There's a framework that makes this concrete. Three variables:
A is how long it takes to assess your cryptographic exposure and migrate to quantum-resistant infrastructure. For any enterprise with custom applications, a real PKI, hardware security modules, and a supply chain. That timeline is measured in years, not months.
B is how long your data needs to remain confidential. Financial records carry regulatory retention requirements of 7–10 years. Patient records, often 30. Intelligence and genomic data, indefinitely.
C is the time before a quantum computer capable of breaking today's encryption exists.
If A + B exceeds C, the problem has already started.
And C is compressing. Google researchers revised the estimated qubit count needed to break RSA-2048 from roughly 20 million (2019) down to under one million in a 2025 paper. This is a 20-fold reduction achieved through software optimization alone, with no new hardware required. A February 2026 preprint reduced the estimate further, to under 100,000 physical qubits. These figures are directional, not definitive. But they move in one direction only, and consistently faster than most enterprise security timelines anticipated.
For organizations in financial services, healthcare, defence, and critical infrastructure, the A + B > C threshold has very likely already been crossed.
The compliance framing is, if anything, starker than the technical one.
The regulatory community has, effectively, already made its decision. Migration is mandatory. The question for your organization is whether that migration happens on your timeline or someone else's.
The immediate priority isn't a full cryptographic overhaul. It's understanding your actual exposure, which most organizations don't yet have visibility into.
That means mapping where quantum-vulnerable cryptography lives in your environment: your TLS configuration, your certificate infrastructure, your hardware security modules, your digital signing infrastructure. You cannot scope a migration you haven't mapped, and you cannot defend against a risk you haven't quantified.
ISACA's 2025 survey of over 2,600 security professionals found that 62% are concerned quantum computing will compromise today's encryption, but only 5% have a defined quantum strategy in place. The gap between awareness and action is where exposure accumulates.
The standards, the expertise, and the assessment tools exist now. What's shortening is the lead time before regulatory enforcement and the harvest-to-decryption gap start to close simultaneously.
The organizations that face the worst outcomes won't be caught off guard by a sudden breakthrough. They'll be the ones that understood the risk, had time to act, and waited.
****************************
Horizen Labs delivers quantum-resistant security assessments and cryptographic advisory to enterprise, financial services, and government organizations. Our Quantum Threat Assessment is a PhD-led review that maps your cryptographic exposure and defines where to focus.
Learn more at quantum.horizenlabs.io.
Are You Ready for the Post-Quantum Era?
Get a Free Quantum Threat AssessmentBLOG

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act to the full Senate floor on May 14, 2026. The bill defines what compliance looks like for digital asset intermediaries. What it doesn't define is how the industry operationalizes those requirements, and that gap is the harder problem.

This spring, four converging signals: the Coinbase advisory board's quantum security paper, Google's accelerated 2029 PQC deadline, Oratomic's qubit estimate findings, and Scott Aaronson's public statement, collectively make the case that the industry's 2035 migration planning assumptions are no longer defensible. Horizen Labs breaks down what the evidence actually says, what is exposed on-chain today, and what serious preparation looks like.

An agent says it ran 16 security checks on your smart contract. Did it actually run all 16? Did it run any? Right now, there's no way to know.