QTS-09: Crypto-Agility Architecture
Mechanisms exist to validate design-level cryptographic agility across protocols, libraries, kernels and hardware to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) can support larger Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) key, signature and ciphertext sizes.
Control Question: Does the organization validate design-level cryptographic agility across protocols, libraries, kernels and hardware to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) can support larger Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) key, signature and ciphertext sizes?
General (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| NIST CSWP 39 | 4.0 5.4 6.2 6.3 6.4 |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | CRY-01.01B.9 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 — Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to validate design-level cryptographic agility across protocols, libraries, kernels and hardware to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) can support larger Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) key, signature and ciphertext sizes.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- QTS-09_A01 design-level cryptographic agility across protocols, libraries, kernels and hardware to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) is validated to support larger Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) key, signature and ciphertext sizes.
Evidence Requirements
- E-QTS-14 Post-Quantum Cryptography Agility Plan (PQCAP)
-
Documented evidence of a Post-Quantum Cryptography Agility Plan (PQCAP), including data shelf-life classification and crypto-agility architecture.
Quantum Security
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Prefer cloud services and software that support algorithm updates without redesign
Small
- Use cloud-native cryptographic services with configurable algorithm support
- Avoid hardcoded cryptographic algorithm dependencies
Medium
- Design systems for cryptographic algorithm replaceability
- Crypto-agility requirements in architecture reviews
- Abstraction of cryptographic operations from application logic
Large
- Crypto-agility architecture validation in design reviews
- Cryptographic abstraction layer requirements
- Support for PQC key and signature sizes in protocols and libraries
Enterprise
- Enterprise crypto-agility architecture program
- Formal agility validation across protocols, libraries and hardware
- Cryptographic abstraction APIs enforced organization-wide
- Automated architecture compliance checking