Quantum computing fundamentally threatens traditional encryption methods
Quantum computing is charging in fast, and when it lands, much of today’s cybersecurity infrastructure becomes obsolete almost instantly.
The majority of secure digital systems today run on what’s called asymmetric cryptography. This includes widely used protocols like RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and elliptic-curve cryptography. These rely on math problems that are hard for classical computers to solve. But for quantum machines, they’re easy. Once large-scale quantum machines are operational, and we’re talking within five years by some expert estimates, breaking these encryption methods becomes trivial. That means everything from private financial transactions to government emails and defense data could be wide open.
IBM, Google, and other tech leaders are making rapid progress, increasing the stability and error tolerance of quantum computers. The shift is real. When quantum hits its threshold, stolen data, possibly collected years in advance by state actors, can be instantly decrypted. Think about what that means. Sensitive archives that were secure yesterday become vulnerabilities overnight. In quantum, speed is leverage, data becomes exploitable in hours, not months.
This wave is unavoidable. Any organization still relying exclusively on classical encryption without a strategy for quantum resistance is headed toward a massive security gap. Boards need to look ahead, not behind. Waiting turns this from a manageable transition into a crisis.
Most businesses are currently underprepared for the quantum cybersecurity challenge
Most companies aren’t ready for what’s coming. Not even close.
Only 10% of companies surveyed by Bain have a roadmap that’s resourced and backed by leadership. That’s a problem. A good number are sitting back, waiting for vendors or regulators to lead. That’s risky thinking. Outsourcing this kind of risk is a delay tactic.
Some leaders assume that regulatory bodies will update the rules in time. They won’t. Regulation always lags behind threat velocity, especially with technology moving this fast. Meanwhile, some companies plan to lean on third-party vendors for post-quantum upgrades. That sounds okay until you realize vendors aren’t responsible for your entire stack. They patch what they sell. Everything else? That’s still on you. Security risk isn’t a service you can defer. And compliance? That liability sits squarely with your business, not the vendor.
The survey shows that only 11% of organizations believe their current safeguards will hold up in the next five years. Just think about that, if 89% of C-suite leaders know their security controls are vulnerable, then waiting isn’t an option. Quantum readiness is not an IT issue, it’s an existential leadership call.
Executives need to own this. Not in a year. Now.
Quantum computing will dramatically accelerate the scale, speed, and diversity of cyberattacks
Quantum computing doesn’t just break encryption, it changes how cyberattacks operate. It lifts the limits on scale, on speed, and on how deeply attackers can infiltrate.
Quantum machines will make decrypting stolen encrypted data fast, hours instead of months or years. Attackers won’t have to wait. Sensitive archives collected by state actors or cybercriminal groups over the past decade, defense IP, chip blueprints, national research, can be exploited the moment those machines go online. That includes data previously deemed safe under classical cryptography.
But it’s not just about reading data. Quantum makes it easier to find zero-day vulnerabilities, those flaws in software no one knows exist yet. This changes threat modeling across every sector. With AI on top, you get more persistent malware, more convincing impersonations, and smarter fraud systems that learn and adapt in real time. These attacks won’t operate within today’s detection timelines. They’ll move faster than organizations can respond unless the right defenses are already in place.
Boards and executive teams need to understand the shift isn’t just technical, it’s strategic. This is a direct hit to trust. Compromise moves fast when attackers can automate breach vectors and render current protections meaningless.
Quantum will drop the cost of high-impact cyberattacks while increasing their accuracy and success rate. If you’re not preparing defenses before those capabilities materialize, you’re choosing to be reactive, and in this case, reactive won’t be fast enough.
Organizations should not depend solely on third-party vendors
Depending on vendors or regulators to solve your quantum risk is a weak strategy. It’s what you do when you don’t want to make the hard decisions internally.
Too many companies are looking outward, assuming someone else will handle the complexity. But third-party vendors only cover what they sell. They won’t overhaul your custom systems or manage integrations across platforms you’ve bought or built over the last ten years. They’ll update their patch. Everything else is still vulnerable. Security strategy that relies on vendors assumes that their response times, priorities, and risk tolerance match yours. They don’t.
And regulation isn’t designed to move quickly. By the time quantum-resilient standards are finalized, and actually enforced, it’s highly likely that threat actors will already have access to functional quantum systems. Even published post-quantum algorithms are vulnerable to attacks right now. That isn’t hypothetical. Some of the algorithms recommended by standards bodies like NIST have already been weakened using classical computing methods. Implementation flaws, not just theoretical weaknesses, are being exploited.
None of this transfers accountability. Compliance obligations don’t disappear if you rely on a vendor or regulatory body. If a breach happens, your business holds the liability. Regulators won’t care who you outsourced to.
Trusted frameworks and peer guidance are useful, and vendor upgrades are necessary. But they’re not enough. This risk needs to be owned internally. That means leadership has to drive the quantum roadmap. No one else is going to do it for you, and if they did, it wouldn’t be on your timeline.
A clear understanding of one’s cryptographic landscape is critical for effective quantum risk mitigation
Before you can fix something, you need to know exactly where it stands. That applies directly to quantum risk. Most companies lack visibility into their cryptographic infrastructure, and without that visibility, there’s no way to secure it.
Encryption today is not uniform. There are hundreds of cryptographic keys, algorithms, and protocols deployed across enterprise systems. Many of them are embedded deep in legacy code, vendor applications, and overlooked data pipelines. Executives need to understand the exposure risks created by this complexity. What’s being encrypted? Where is it stored? What algorithms are protecting it? How long does that data need to stay secure?
According to Bain’s research, only 52% of organizations have an accurate view of where their sensitive data resides. Even fewer, just 38%—maintain a comprehensive inventory of which cryptographic standards they use. That means more than half of organizations can’t fully assess which assets are exposed to post-quantum attacks.
Leadership needs to push for a baseline assessment. Without full situational awareness, quantum planning becomes guesswork. Your most critical data is probably also the most vulnerable, and if you don’t know where it is or how it’s protected, you can’t defend it.
This audit isn’t just a technical detail; it’s foundational for long-term security. Whether you’re in finance, healthcare, manufacturing, or defense, the way your cryptographic environment is structured today determines how easily you can transition to quantum-resistant models tomorrow.
A phased, comprehensive approach is essential to achieving quantum readiness
Quantum security is not a one-step fix. It requires a managed, end-to-end transformation. Without a roadmap, the scope will overwhelm your teams, and the gaps will expose your business.
The right approach starts with a full audit of cryptographic assets and grows into targeted upgrades across infrastructure, workflows, and security protocols. Bain outlines a seven-step process companies can use. It begins with identifying what needs protection, your data, keys, algorithms, and mapping where they exist. From there, the organization can prioritize high-risk areas and build an upgrade timeline based on sensitivity and urgency.
Cyber capabilities need to be upgraded in parallel. Identity and access management, incident response, and vulnerability management are key functions that must evolve to handle quantum-era threats. Quantum-resilient systems aren’t just about new algorithms, they’re about making sure your entire architecture can respond, adapt, and scale under unfamiliar pressure.
Your vendor ecosystem needs to keep up. Only 12% of organizations apply quantum readiness as a procurement requirement. That puts the vast majority at risk of integrating tools that aren’t built for quantum threats. Executives must drive vendor compliance and crypto-agile architecture as part of ongoing risk controls, not as a one-time upgrade.
This transformation also includes modernizing DevOps and building modular software that can integrate quantum-resilient encryption without overhauling every line of code. Governance frameworks need to be updated with quantum-specific risk assessments. Business continuity plans should address crypto-failure scenarios if systems are breached.
Most importantly, this can’t be siloed inside IT. Organizational readiness means enabling security, development, compliance, and executive teams with the training and decision-making tools they need. Quantum isn’t just another trend, it’s a structural risk that demands coordinated attention from across the business. If your strategy doesn’t reflect that scale, it won’t be effective.
Embracing crypto-agility and a hybrid-crypto strategy
Crypto-agility is non-negotiable if you want to stay ahead of quantum threats. It’s the engineered ability to quickly switch between cryptographic algorithms without rewriting systems or interrupting business processes. Without it, every new encryption method becomes a costly, fragmented rollout.
Right now, most organizations are inflexible. Their systems are built around fixed encryption protocols, many of which will collapse under quantum attacks. A quantum-resilient approach includes hybrid cryptography. That means combining a traditional encryption method, like elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman, with a post-quantum algorithm such as Kyber for key exchange. This dual-layered system gives your business an immediate safeguard: even if the classical side is compromised under quantum processing, the post-quantum layer holds its ground.
This is already feasible with leading post-quantum options such as Kyber, Dilithium, and Falcon, which are gaining traction across governments and research bodies. Implementing hybrid cryptography across high-impact environments, finance operations, customer systems, proprietary product data, is a direct way to reduce systemic risk.
According to Bain’s study, only 12% of companies apply quantum readiness as a formal procurement or risk review criterion. This underinvestment exposes organizations to longer upgrade cycles, technical debt, and greater risk during real-world attacks. Executives need to push for adaptive architecture now, not later.
Crypto-agility doesn’t mean replacing everything today. It means building the flexibility to evolve and respond without disruption. If your systems aren’t modular or prepared to adopt new crypto standards quickly, the cost of upgrading tomorrow will be orders of magnitude higher than acting early.
Traditional isolation techniques are inadequate for defending against quantum-powered threats
Relying on air-gapped or isolated systems as your primary line of defense is not going to cut it. Quantum threats bypass these static protections by targeting weaknesses in code, embedded encryption, and external system dependencies.
Physical or logical isolation might deter some basic threats, but they don’t protect against the nature of quantum-powered attacks. With the speed and scope quantum computing introduces, attackers no longer need direct access, they just need data repositories they can hold and decrypt later. Once that data is captured or leaked from environments you thought were safe, quantum tools can do the rest.
Modern attack vectors increasingly involve insiders, supply chain routes, and software layer vulnerabilities. Isolation doesn’t touch these. The answer is deeper integration of cryptographic defenses across systems, not segmentation as a standalone mechanic.
To prepare for what’s next, organizations need to shift from perimeter thinking to system-wide resilience. Executives must lead efforts that treat cryptography as a foundational component, not just something embedded in external defenses. Security controls have to be measurable, testable, and upgradable. That doesn’t happen when security strategy leans too heavily on physical separation.
Post-quantum preparation must bring every system, connected or not, into compliance with crypto-agile, scalable, and quantum-resilient standards. Anything short of that leaves defense gaps open that attackers will exploit as computing capabilities grow.
Both internal systems and external market-facing products require urgent upgrades to become quantum-resilient
Quantum risk doesn’t stop at your internal infrastructure. It extends to every product your customers use that relies on secure data transmission, embedded software, or network connectivity. Ignoring this weakens trust and increases liability.
Most security efforts so far have focused on internal systems, mobile apps, data centers, cloud environments. But the reality is that many companies also ship products with embedded digital components that are vulnerable to post-quantum attacks. This includes connected medical devices, industrial machines, consumer electronics, and enterprise software sold to clients. Every external-facing product is a potential attack surface if it runs classical cryptographic protocols with no roadmap for upgrade.
Despite this, Bain reports that only 10% of executives currently have a post-quantum transition plan that includes both internal systems and customer-facing technologies. That gap creates a two-sided risk: breach exposure internally, and reputational damage externally if products are compromised in the field.
Developing a full lifecycle update strategy is essential. That means hardening product code, updating firmware, building in crypto-agility from the next release forward, and ensuring supply chain partners comply with quantum-resilient standards. If your products remain stuck in classical encryption, breaches won’t be contained, they’ll follow the product wherever it’s deployed.
This is a leadership issue. Executives must ensure product development and technology teams align security upgrades with market delivery cycles. Waiting until a breach occurs is not a defensible position with regulators or customers.
Immediate action is crucial, as the window to build robust quantum defenses is rapidly closing
We’re not dealing with a long planning horizon. Most experts estimate that functional quantum machines capable of breaking classical encryption could be operational within three to five years. That’s not much time, especially when you account for how long it takes to implement enterprise-wide encryption upgrades, re-architect system dependencies, and coordinate across internal and external teams.
According to Bain’s research, 90% of executives admit their organizations have no formal plan, no budget, and no leadership-backed initiative in place for quantum readiness. This is a serious gap. If quantum capability becomes viable before organizations finish basic preparation, it’s too late to recover without massive cost and disruption.
Adding to the challenge: most companies already face resource constraints. Cybersecurity functions are stretched thin responding to current threats. Without prioritization from the top, allocating new resources for quantum defense is slow, and in many cases non-existent.
The longer organizations wait, the more expensive and complex the transition becomes. That includes retrofitting outdated systems, scrambling to meet evolving regulatory frameworks, and rushing to patch exposed products already in the hands of customers.
Proactive leadership today will cost less and offer stronger protection. Delayed action means exposing your systems, your brand, and your customers to a class of threats your current infrastructure simply was never designed to handle.
Boards and executive teams need to see quantum readiness not as an option, but as a strategic necessity. The transition will be difficult, but failure to act early guarantees higher risk, higher cost, and fewer viable options down the line.
Concluding thoughts
Quantum computing isn’t theoretical anymore, it’s an active threat to current security models, and the timeline is shorter than most are planning for. What’s at risk isn’t just data, it’s operational integrity, customer trust, and long-term viability.
If your cryptographic systems can’t evolve quickly, your business has a problem. Waiting for vendors, regulators, or competitors to lead is not leadership. Quantum readiness isn’t just about upgrading algorithms, it’s about strategic accountability across your entire organization.
You don’t need to solve everything today. But you do need a plan, funding, and ownership at the highest levels. The cost of being early is measurable. The cost of being late could be unmanageable.
Treat this like the infrastructure-level risk it is. Use the time you have, because there may not be much of it left.
