SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

Comparative Performance Analysis of Classical and Post-Quantum Cryptography (FIPS 203/204) on ARMv8 IoT Devices Across NIST Security Levels

NIST Güvenlik Seviyeleri İçin ARMv8 IoT Cihazlarında Klasik ve Kuantum Sonrası Kriptografinin (FIPS 203/204) Karşılaştırmalı Performans Analizi

Cemile İnce(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4638-8501
Pages
111–123
Publication Date
2026-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results revealed that PQC algorithms run significantly faster than existing classical encryption algorithms, and as the security level increases, they perform at levels where classical encryption algorithms become unusable in environments with limited hardware resources.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In current communication technologies, classical encryption algorithms used for data transmission provide a sufficient level of security.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the post-quantum era, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the FIPS 203 (ML-KEM) and FIPS 204 (ML-DSA) post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms in 2024.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results revealed that PQC algorithms run significantly faster than existing classical encryption algorithms, and as the security level increases, they perform at levels where classical encryption algorithms become unusable in environments with limited hardware resources.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Post-Kuantum Kriptografi (PQC) · ML-KEM · ML-DSA

Abstract

In current communication technologies, classical encryption algorithms used for data transmission provide a sufficient level of security. However, it is predicted that in the future, with the widespread use of quantum computers, existing encryption algorithms, currently considered very secure, could be broken within seconds. For the post-quantum era, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the FIPS 203 (ML-KEM) and FIPS 204 (ML-DSA) post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms in 2024. This study compares existing encryption algorithms in resource-constrained environments with the FIPS 203 and FIPS 204 standard algorithms, based on the security levels (Level 1, Level 3, Level 5) published by NIST. Comparing these algorithms at the level level is important for determining the performance of PQC algorithms in resource-constrained environments when security levels are increased. During the comparison, metrics such as latency, energy consumption, memory usage, and communication overhead were analyzed. The results revealed that PQC algorithms run significantly faster than existing classical encryption algorithms, and as the security level increases, they perform at levels where classical encryption algorithms become unusable in environments with limited hardware resources.

Özet

Günümüz iletişim teknolojilerinde veri iletimi için kullanılan klasik şifreleme algoritmaları yeterli düzeyde güvenlik sağlamaktadır. Kuantum bilgisayarların yaygın kullanılmaya başlanacağı gelecekte çok güvenli olarak bilinen mevcut şifreleme algoritmalarının saniyeler içersinde kırılabileceği öngörülmektedir. Kuantum sonrası için Ulusal Standartlar ve Teknoloji Enstitüsü (NIST) 2024 'te kuantum sonrası kriptografik (PQC) algoritmalarından FIPS 203 (ML-KEM) ve FIPS 204 (ML-DSA) algoritmalarını yayımlamıştır. Bu çalışmada kaynak kısıtlı ortamlarda mevcut şifreleme algoritmaları, FIPS 203 ve FIPS 204 standartları algoritmalarıyla yine NIST'in yayımamış olduğu güvenlik seviyeleri (Seviye 1, Seviye 3, Seviye 5) bazında kıyaslanmaktadır. Kıyaslamaların seviye bazında yapılması güvenlik seviyelerinin arttırıldığında kaynak kısıtlı ortamlarda PQC algoritmalarının performansının belirlenmesi açısından önemlidir.Karşılaştırma sırasında gecikme, enerji tüketimi, bellek kullanımı ve iletişim yükü gibi ölçütler analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, PQC algoritmalarının mevcut klasik şifreleme algoritmalarından önemli ölçüde daha hızlı çalıştığını ve güvenlik seviyesi arttıkça, klasik şifreleme algoritmalarının sınırlı donanım kaynaklarına sahip ortamlarda kullanılamaz hale gelen seviyelerde performans gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

İnce, C. (2026). Comparative Performance Analysis of Classical and Post-Quantum Cryptography (FIPS 203/204) on ARMv8 IoT Devices Across NIST Security Levels. Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1883893

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adleman, "A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems," Communications of the ACM, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 120–126, Feb. 1978, doi: 10.1145/359340.359342.
  2. V. S. Miller, “Use of Elliptic Curves in Cryptography,” in Advances in Cryptology CRYPTO ’85 Proceedings, vol. 218, H. C. Williams, Ed., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 218, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1986, pp. 417–426. doi: 10.1007/3-540-39799-X-31.
  3. N. Koblitz, "Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems," Mathematics of Computation, vol. 48, no. 177, pp. 203–209, Jan. 1987, doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1987-0866109-5.
  4. P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Santa Fe, NM, USA: IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1994, pp. 124–134. doi: 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700.
  5. National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), “Module-lattice-based digital signature standard,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Washington, D.C., NIST FIPS 204, Aug. 2024. doi: 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.204.
  6. National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), “Module-lattice-based key-encapsulation mechanism standard,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Washington, D.C., NIST FIPS 203, Aug. 2024. doi: 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.203.
  7. C. Paquin, D. Stebila, and G. Tamvada, “Benchmarking Post-Quantum Cryptography in TLS,” in Post-Quantum Cryptography, vol. 12100, J. Ding and J.-P. Tillich, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12100., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 72–91. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-44223-1-5.
  8. A. Kaçar and İ. Türkoğlu, "A Theoretical and Methodological Review of the Data Fusion Process: Architectures, Algorithms, and Challenges," Turkish Journal of Nature and Science, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 133–151, 2026, doi: 10.46810/tdfd.1783115.
  9. G. Alagic et al. “Status report on the third round of the NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization process,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Gaithersburg, MD, NIST IR 8413-upd1, Sep. 2022. doi: 10.6028/NIST.IR.8413-upd1.
  10. F. Barrett-danes and F. Ahmad, "Quantum computing and cybersecurity: a rigorous systematic review of emerging threats, post-quantum solutions, and research directions (2019–2024)," Discover Applied Sciences, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1–20, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s42452-025-07322-5.
  11. H. Wei, W. Li, S. Shen, H. Yang, and Y. Zhao, "Optimized Implementation of ML-KEM on ARMv9-A with SVE2 and SME," IACR ePrint, Report 2026/093, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/093.
  12. G. Gürgüze and İ. Türkoğlu, "Robot Sistemlerinde Kullanılan Algoritmalar," Turkish Journal of Nature and Science, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2019.
  13. D. Joseph et al., “Transitioning organizations to post-quantum cryptography,” Nature, vol. 605, no. 7909, pp. 237–243, May 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04623-2.
  14. G. Fitzgibbon and C. Ottaviani, “Constrained Device Performance Benchmarking with the Implementation of Post-Quantum Cryptography,” Cryptography, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 21, May 2024, doi: 10.3390/cryptography8020021.
  15. M. A. Khan, F. Noor, S. Javaid, and J. Żywiołek, “Implementation and performance of post-quantum cryptography for resource constrained consumer electronics,” Discov. Internet Things, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 139, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s43926-025-00238-x.
  16. G. Tasopoulos, C. Dimopoulos, A. P. Fournaris, R. K. Zhao, A. Sakzad, and R. Steinfeld, “Energy Consumption Evaluation of Post-Quantum TLS 1.3 for Resource-Constrained Embedded Devices,” in Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, Bologna Italy: ACM, May 2023, pp. 366–374. doi: 10.1145/3587135.3592821.
  17. M. Almutairi and F. T. Sheldon, "Resilience of Post-Quantum Cryptography in Lightweight IoT Protocols: A Systematic Review," Eng, vol. 6, no. 12, p. 346, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.3390/eng6120346.
  18. J. Bos et al., “CRYSTALS - Kyber: A CCA-Secure Module-Lattice-Based KEM,” in 2018 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), London: IEEE, Apr. 2018, pp. 353–367. doi: 10.1109/EuroSP.2018.00032.
  19. C. A. Roma, C.-E. A. Tai, and M. A. Hasan, “Energy Efficiency Analysis of Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithms,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 71295–71317, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3077843.
  20. Q. D. Truong, Y. Jang, and H. Lee, “High-Performance Unified Hardware Architecture for ML-DSA and ML-KEM PQC Standards,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 189444–189460, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3628733.
  21. M. J. Kannwischer, J. Rijneveld, P. Schwabe, and K. Stoffelen, "pqm4: Testing and Benchmarking NIST PQC on ARM Cortex-M4," presented at the 2nd NIST PQC Standardization Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Aug. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/844.
  22. F. Kagai, P. Branch, J. But, and R. Allen, “Harvest-Now, Decrypt-Later: A Temporal Cybersecurity Risk in the Quantum Transition,” Telecom, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 100, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.3390/telecom6040100.
  23. G. Ortaç and D. Yıltaş-Kaplan, "Afet Yönetimi ve Kablosuz İletişim Sürekliliğine Genel Bakış," Turkish Journal of Nature and Science, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 316–326, 2021, doi: 10.46810/tdfd.838308.
  24. D. Stebila and M. Mosca, “Post-quantum Key Exchange for the Internet and the Open Quantum Safe Project,” in Selected Areas in Cryptography – SAC 2016, vol. 10532, R. Avanzi and H. Heys, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10532, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 14–37. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-69453-5_2.
  25. Q. D. Truong, H. Nguyen, T. Tan Nguyen, and H. Lee, “NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards: A Comprehensive Review of Theoretical Foundations and Implementations,” IEEE Access, vol. 14, pp. 14069–14097, 2026, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3654142.
  26. F. Doğan, M. Aktaş, and M. İ. Gürsoy, "Classification of Skin Diseases with Different Deep Learning Models and Comparison of the Performances of the Models," Turkish Journal of Nature and Science, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 117–123, 2024, doi: 10.46810/tdfd.1502471