SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 4

Performance Evaluation of ML-KEM and ML-DSA Post-Quantum Algorithms in Real-World IoT Networks

Cemile İnce(INONU UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4638-8501
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️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)

Experimental results demonstrate the practical viability of PQC algorithms in IoT environments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The recent introduction of Google’s Willow quantum chip has demonstrated remarkable computational capabilities, solving problems in microseconds that would take classical computers millions of years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study evaluates the performance of NIST-standardized PQC algorithms ML-KEM (512, 768, 1024) and ML-DSA (2, 3, 5) on a Raspberry Pi 4 Model B, representing baseline IoT device capabilities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Experimental results demonstrate the practical viability of PQC algorithms in IoT environments.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Post-quantum cryptography · Internet of things · ML-KEM

Abstract

The recent introduction of Google’s Willow quantum chip has demonstrated remarkable computational capabilities, solving problems in microseconds that would take classical computers millions of years. As quantum computers advance toward cryptographic relevance, existing encryption algorithms become vulnerable to attacks that could break them within seconds or minutes, rendering current cryptographic protections ineffective. This necessitates the establishment of post-quantum cryptography (PQC) standards to secure systems in the quantum era. This study evaluates the performance of NIST-standardized PQC algorithms ML-KEM (512, 768, 1024) and ML-DSA (2, 3, 5) on a Raspberry Pi 4 Model B, representing baseline IoT device capabilities. Using the Liboqs library, each algorithm was executed across 1000 iterations in a real-world wireless network environment connected to a router, accounting for practical network conditions such as packet loss, latency, and jitter to assess computational feasibility under resource-constrained conditions. Experimental results demonstrate the practical viability of PQC algorithms in IoT environments. ML-KEM-512 achieves encapsulation in 55.76 μs and decapsulation in 56.15 μs, with key generation in 123.78 μs (median), while ML-DSA-44 completes signature generation in 379.83 μs and verification in 159.38 μs. These findings confirm that both ML-KEM and ML-DSA algorithms offer efficient and rapid performance, making them suitable candidates for securing IoT devices against quantum threats.

🔖

Cite This Article

İnce, C. (2026). Performance Evaluation of ML-KEM and ML-DSA Post-Quantum Algorithms in Real-World IoT Networks. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, Volume: 9 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.35377/saucis...1874093

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. A. Hamza and B. Kumar, “A review paper on DES, AES, RSA encryption standards,” in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Syst. Model. Adv. Res. Trends (SMART), Moradabad, India, pp. 333–338, 2020.
  2. P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proc. 35th Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (FOCS), Santa Fe, NM, USA, pp. 124–134, 1994.
  3. M. Frustaci, P. Pace, G. Aloi, and G. Fortino, “Evaluating critical security issues of the IoT world: Present and future challenges,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2483–2495, Aug. 2018.
  4. E. Alkim, P. Jakubeit, and P. Schwabe, “NewHope on ARM Cortex-M,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Secur., Privacy, Appl. Cryptogr. Eng. (SPACE), Hyderabad, India, pp. 332–349, 2016.
  5. S. Ravi, A. Raghunathan, P. Kocher, and S. Hattangady, “Security in embedded systems: Design challenges,” ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 461–491, Aug. 2004.
  6. J. Bos et al., “CRYSTALS—Kyber: A CCA-secure module-lattice-based KEM,” in Proc. IEEE Eur. Symp. Secur. Privacy (EuroS&P), Paris, France, pp. 353–367, 2018.
  7. L. Ducas, E. Kiltz, T. Lepoint, V. Lyubashevsky, P. Schwabe, G. Seiler, and D. Stehlé, “CRYSTALS-Dilithium: A lattice-based digital signature scheme,” IACR Trans. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embedded Syst., vol. 2018, no. 1, pp. 238–268, 2018.
  8. T. Güneysu, V. Lyubashevsky, and T. Pöppelmann, “Practical lattice-based cryptography: A signature scheme for embedded systems,” in Proc. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embedded Syst. (CHES), Leuven, Belgium, pp. 530–547, 2012.
  9. J. Howe, T. Oder, M. Krausz, and T. Güneysu, “Standard lattice-based key encapsulation on embedded devices,” IACR Trans. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embedded Syst., vol. 2018, no. 3, pp. 372–393, 2018.
  10. K. Xagawa, “Quantum-safe cryptographic primitives: State of the art,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 718–752, 2023.
  11. D. Stebila and M. Mosca, “Post-quantum key exchange for the Internet and the Open Quantum Safe project,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Selected Areas Cryptogr. (SAC), St. John’s, NL, Canada, pp. 14–37, 2016.
  12. K. Mansoor, M. Afzal, W. Iqbal, Y. Abbas, S. Mussiraliyeva, and A. Chehri, “PQCAIE: Post quantum cryptographic authentication scheme for IoT-based e-health systems,” Internet Things, vol. 27, Art. no. 101228, 2024.
  13. F. Opiłka, M. Niemiec, M. Gagliardi, and M. A. Kourtis, “Performance analysis of post-quantum cryptography algorithms for digital signature,” Appl. Sci., vol. 14, no. 12, Art. no. 4994, Jun. 2024.
  14. N. A. Ismail, S. A. Khadra, G. M. Attiya, and A. E. Takieldeen, “Optimizing SIKE for blockchain-based IoT ecosystems with resource constraints,” J. Supercomput., vol. 81, Art. no. 463, 2025.
  15. Y.-J. Chen, C.-L. Hsu, T.-W. Lin, and J.-S. Lee, “Design and evaluation of device authentication and secure communication system with PQC for AIoT environments,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 8, Art. no. 1575, Apr. 2024.
  16. M. Almutairi and F. T. Sheldon, “Resilience of post-quantum cryptography in lightweight IoT protocols: A systematic review,” Eng, vol. 6, no. 12, Art. no. 346, Dec. 2025.
  17. A. Astarloa, J. Lázaro, and J. I. Gárate, “CRYSTALS-Dilithium post-quantum cyber-secure SoC for wired communications in critical systems,” Internet Things, vol. 33, Art. no. 101656, 2025.
  18. T. Huang, C. Chen, Y. Li, Z. Wang, and J. Liu, “A lightweight and efficient post quantum crypto-processor for ML-DSA,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, 2025.
  19. M. Lee, J. Jang, S. Kim, and S. Hong, “Improved Frobenius FFT for code-based cryptography on Cortex-M4,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 17, pp. 36318–36327, 2025.
  20. G. Alsuhli, H. Saleh, M. Al-Qutayri, B. Mohammad, and T. Stouraitis, “Area and power efficient FFT/IFFT processor for FALCON post-quantum cryptography,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Topics Comput., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 423–437, Apr.–Jun. 2025.
  21. G. Alagic et al., “Status report on the fourth round of the NIST post-quantum cryptography standardization process,” Nat. Inst. Standards Technol., Gaithersburg, MD, USA, NIST IR 8545, Mar. 2025.
  22. K. Vijay and M. S. Bhatt, “Secure drone-to-drone communication using post-quantum cryptography,” Drones, vol. 8, no. 4, 2024.
  23. W. Gay, Raspberry Pi Hardware Reference. Berkeley, CA, USA: Apress, 2014.
  24. A. Kurniawan, Getting Started with Raspberry Pi 4. Berkeley, CA, USA: PE Press, 2019.
  25. J. Woodage, R. Connolly, and S. Spargimino, “Constrained device performance benchmarking with the implementation of post-quantum cryptography,” Cryptography, vol. 8, no. 2, Art. no. 21, 2024.
  26. M. A. Al-Shareeda, N. Kumar, M. Guizani, and S. Mishra, “Efficient implementation of post-quantum digital signatures on Raspberry Pi,” Discover Appl. Sci., Jun. 2025.
  27. D. Commey, P. Quist-Aphetsi, L. Nkansah-Gyekye, and N. Agbleze, “Evaluating post-quantum cryptographic algorithms on resource-constrained devices,” arXiv:2507.08312, Jul. 2025.
  28. X. Liu, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, and H. Chen, “Post-quantum cryptography for Internet of Things: A survey on performance and optimization,” arXiv:2401.17538, Jan. 2024.
  29. T. Tanaka, S. Yamamoto, K. Nakamura, and H. Suzuki, “Performance evaluation of post-quantum cryptographic algorithms on Raspberry Pi platforms,” Int. Arch. Photogramm., Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., vol. XLVIII-4/W16-2025, pp. 113–120, 2025.
  30. Y. Hanna, J. Bozhko, S. Tonyali, R. Harrilal-Parchment, M. Cebe, and K. Akkaya, “A comprehensive and realistic performance evaluation of post-quantum security for consumer IoT devices,” Internet Things, vol. 33, Art. no. 101650, Jun. 2025.
  31. M. A. Garrach, C. Waghela, M. M. Mathews, and L. S. Sreekuttan, “Benchmarking speed of post-quantum lattice-based PKE/KEM schemes using Liboqs,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Trends Quantum Comput. Emerg. Bus. Technol. (TQCEBT), Pune, India, pp. 1–5, 2022.
  32. C. İnce, “Hybrid ML-KEM in TLS 1.3: Performance analysis on ARM64 under network stress,” Comput. Sci., 2026, doi: 10.53070/bbd.1898820.
  33. Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard, FIPS 203, Nat. Inst. Standards Technol., Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Aug. 2024.
  34. Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard, FIPS 204, Nat. Inst. Standards Technol., Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Aug. 2024.
  35. V. Lyubashevsky, “Fiat-Shamir with aborts: Applications to lattice and factoring-based signatures,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Cryptol. Inf. Secur. (ASIACRYPT), Tokyo, Japan, pp. 598–616, 2009.