跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.17003 · v1

Maturity$^2$: Assessing the Maturity of Crypto Agility Maturity Models

首次提交 2026-11-13 00:02
版本更新 2026-11-13 00:02
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:15
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Crypto agility maturity models aim to support organizations in preparing for cryptographic transitions, such as migrating to post-quantum cryptography. Recognizing the importance of measurable maturity, NIST references several such models in its guidance. Given NIST's influence on cybersecurity practice, these models may shape organizational planning and governance mechanisms. However, their design quality has not been systematically evaluated. In this work, we assess three industry-driven maturity models against established design principles. Our analysis reveals recurring weaknesses, particularly the lack of measurable, reproducible assessment criteria and limited prescriptive guidance for improving crypto agility. At the same time, we highlight individual strengths that can assist practitioners in choosing among the models and derive concrete recommendations for strengthening future crypto agility maturity models.

作者备注:19th International Symposium on Foundations & Practice of Security (FPS - 2026)

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-13 00:02 · 最新观测版本

Maturity$^2$: Assessing the Maturity of Crypto Agility Maturity Models

Crypto agility maturity models aim to support organizations in preparing for cryptographic transitions, such as migrating to post-quantum cryptography. Recognizing the importance of measurable maturity, NIST references several such models in its guidance. Given NIST's influence on cybersecurity practice, these models may shape organizational planning and governance mechanisms. However, their design quality has not been systematically evaluated. In this work, we assess three industry-driven maturity models against established design principles. Our analysis reveals recurring weaknesses, particularly the lack of measurable, reproducible assessment criteria and limited prescriptive guidance for improving crypto agility. At the same time, we highlight individual strengths that can assist practitioners in choosing among the models and derive concrete recommendations for strengthening future crypto agility maturity models.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗