arxiv: 2604.15584 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.CR

Recognition: unknown

A Framework for Post Quantum Migration in IoT-Based Healthcare Systems

Asif Alif , Khondokar Fida Hasan , Basker Palaniswamy , Md. Morshedul Islam

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR

keywords post-quantum cryptographyIoT healthcarequantum threatmigration frameworkcrypto-agilityphased migrationcybersecurityresource constraints

0 comments

The pith

IoT healthcare systems can transition to quantum-resistant cryptography through a phased hybrid framework.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how quantum computers threaten the encryption used in IoT devices for healthcare, spanning the physical, network, perception, and application layers. It proposes a migration framework that combines phased transitions with hybrid cryptography and crypto-agility to reach quantum-safe methods. A sympathetic reader would care because these systems handle patient data and care delivery where security lapses carry direct health risks. The plan focuses on devices with tight resource limits and the need for compatibility during upgrades.

Core claim

The authors claim that a comprehensive framework integrating a phased hybrid approach with crypto-agility can guide healthcare IoT systems through a secure transition to post-quantum cryptography, with specific attention to layer-specific threats and device constraints.

What carries the argument

The phased hybrid migration framework with crypto-agility, which enables gradual adoption of quantum-safe algorithms while preserving security and functionality.

If this is right

Prioritizes lightweight post-quantum algorithms for resource-limited physical layer devices
Maintains interoperability across vendor-diverse IoT components through flexible crypto options
Minimizes risks of new vulnerabilities during the transition process
Guides infrastructure upgrades needed for network and application layers

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This framework could extend to other critical IoT domains such as industrial monitoring that share similar device constraints and quantum risks
Simulation of quantum attacks on a testbed following the phases would provide early validation before full rollout
The crypto-agility focus may shape future IoT security standards for long-term adaptability

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that heterogeneous IoT devices can adopt hybrid cryptography and crypto-agility without introducing new security vulnerabilities or causing operational failures during the transition.

What would settle it

A real-world pilot implementation on an IoT healthcare system that completes the migration without any detected security breaches or service interruptions would support the claim.

read the original abstract

Smart healthcare industry is increasingly relying on Internet of Things (IoT) devices to improve patient care and operational efficiency. However, the cryptographic algorithms that enable fundamental security and are widely used in these cyber systems are vulnerable to attacks by emerging quantum computers - known as Quantum Threat. This paper examines the quantum threat to healthcare IoT across the four layers of the IoT architecture: physical, network, perception, and application. It proposes a comprehensive migration framework integrating a phased hybrid approach with crypto-agility to transition healthcare IoT systems to quantum-safe cryptography. This framework prioritises resource-constrained devices, emphasises interoperability, and considers the challenges of vendor readiness and infrastructure upgrades. This paper contributes a detailed, phased migration plan specifically tailored to the unique security needs and resource limitations of IoT-based healthcare systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper sketches a high-level phased migration framework for post-quantum crypto in healthcare IoT but stays conceptual without validation or transition risk analysis.

read the letter

The paper's main takeaway is a high-level framework for shifting IoT healthcare systems to post-quantum cryptography using phased hybrid methods and crypto-agility. It stops short of any concrete testing or detailed designs. It organizes the discussion well by mapping quantum threats to the physical, network, perception, and application layers of IoT. The focus on resource-constrained devices, interoperability, and vendor challenges brings existing migration ideas into a healthcare context in a structured way. The soft spots are significant though. The central assumption that hybrid transitions can proceed without new vulnerabilities or failures goes unexamined. There is no threat modeling for issues like key rotation, hybrid signature verification on constrained hardware, or side-channel risks. The phases are described conceptually without mechanisms for backward compatibility or handling heterogeneous vendor setups. This paper is aimed at readers involved in security planning for healthcare IoT, such as standards developers or system architects who want a starting outline. It offers little for those needing empirical evidence or implementable details. It deserves peer review because the topic is current and the layered framework provides a reasonable structure. Referees could guide the authors on adding the necessary analysis and validation to make it more robust. I would recommend sending it for review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines quantum threats to IoT-based healthcare systems across the physical, network, perception, and application layers and proposes a phased hybrid migration framework that combines post-quantum and classical cryptography with crypto-agility, prioritizing resource-constrained devices, interoperability, and vendor readiness.

Significance. If the central assumptions about transition safety hold, the work would supply a structured, layer-specific roadmap that could help critical healthcare infrastructure prepare for quantum threats; the emphasis on crypto-agility and constrained-device priorities addresses a genuine gap between generic post-quantum guidance and domain-specific IoT constraints.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and migration-framework description] The manuscript's core claim—that a phased hybrid approach with crypto-agility can be implemented across heterogeneous IoT layers without introducing new vulnerabilities or operational failures—rests on untested assumptions. No threat model, side-channel analysis, or formal argument is supplied for key-rotation, hybrid-signature verification, or vendor-interoperability handoffs in the constrained-device setting.
[Phased migration plan] The paper offers no empirical validation, simulation results, or even high-level performance estimates for the proposed phases on representative IoT hardware (e.g., memory, latency, or energy overheads of hybrid schemes). This gap directly undermines the feasibility assertions for resource-limited healthcare devices.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction] The four-layer IoT architecture is referenced repeatedly but never defined with explicit mappings to standard models (e.g., perception vs. sensing layer); a brief clarifying table or diagram would improve readability.
[Challenges section] Several claims about “vendor readiness” and “infrastructure upgrades” are stated without supporting citations to current post-quantum standardization timelines or healthcare-device certification processes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the relevance of quantum threats to IoT healthcare systems. We address each major comment below, indicating planned revisions to clarify scope and strengthen the presentation of the framework.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and migration-framework description] The manuscript's core claim—that a phased hybrid approach with crypto-agility can be implemented across heterogeneous IoT layers without introducing new vulnerabilities or operational failures—rests on untested assumptions. No threat model, side-channel analysis, or formal argument is supplied for key-rotation, hybrid-signature verification, or vendor-interoperability handoffs in the constrained-device setting.

Authors: The manuscript presents a conceptual migration framework grounded in established principles of crypto-agility and hybrid post-quantum schemes rather than a formal security proof or implementation study. We accept that the core claim would benefit from explicit discussion of assumptions. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection on the threat model that outlines assumptions for key rotation, hybrid-signature verification, and interoperability handoffs, together with references to known side-channel considerations for post-quantum algorithms in constrained environments. We will also state clearly that comprehensive formal analysis and side-channel evaluation lie outside the scope of this framework paper and are identified as necessary future work. revision: partial
Referee: [Phased migration plan] The paper offers no empirical validation, simulation results, or even high-level performance estimates for the proposed phases on representative IoT hardware (e.g., memory, latency, or energy overheads of hybrid schemes). This gap directly undermines the feasibility assertions for resource-limited healthcare devices.

Authors: The current manuscript focuses on the strategic and architectural design of the phased migration rather than quantitative benchmarking. We agree that high-level performance considerations would improve the feasibility discussion. We will revise the relevant sections to incorporate indicative overhead estimates drawn from published benchmarks of post-quantum algorithms (including NIST PQC reports and studies on IoT implementations) for memory, latency, and energy across the proposed phases. Full empirical simulations on representative hardware are beyond the scope of this framework-oriented paper and will be noted as important directions for subsequent research. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in conceptual migration framework proposal

full rationale

The paper offers a high-level phased migration plan for post-quantum cryptography in IoT healthcare systems, structured around standard four-layer IoT architecture and known quantum threats. No equations, parameter fittings, predictions, or self-citations appear in the provided text that reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The framework draws from established external knowledge on quantum risks and IoT constraints without self-definitional loops or load-bearing author citations. This is a typical non-circular proposal paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard domain assumptions about quantum computing capabilities and IoT architecture rather than new postulates or fitted values.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Quantum computers will be able to break widely used public-key cryptography in the foreseeable future.
Invoked in the abstract when stating the quantum threat to current algorithms.
domain assumption IoT systems can be cleanly divided into physical, network, perception, and application layers for security analysis.
Used to structure the threat examination and migration plan.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5443 in / 1286 out tokens · 31393 ms · 2026-05-10T10:20:45.049869+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum threat in healthcare iot: Challenges and mitigation strategies,

A. Alif, K. F. Hasan, J. Laeuchli, and M. J. M. Chowdhury, “Quantum threat in healthcare iot: Challenges and mitigation strategies,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05904, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[2]

A framework for migrating to post -quantum cryptography: Security dependency analysis and case studies,

K. F. Hasan, L. Simpson, M. A. R. Baee, C. Islam, Z. Rahman, W. Armstrong, P. Gauravaram, and M. McKague, “A framework for migrating to post -quantum cryptography: Security dependency analysis and case studies,” IEEE Access, 2024

2024
[3]

An in-depth exam of iot, iot core components, iot layers, and attack types,

M. Yıldırım, U. Demirog˘lu, and B. S¸ enol, “An in-depth exam of iot, iot core components, iot layers, and attack types,” Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, no. 28, pp. 665–669, 2021

2021
[4]

Securing iot systems in a post -quantum environment: Vulnerabilities, attacks, and possible solutions,

A. Alomari and S. A. Kumar, “Securing iot systems in a post -quantum environment: Vulnerabilities, attacks, and possible solutions,” Internet of Things, p. 101132, 2024

2024
[5]

Standard for an architectural framework for the inter- net of things (iot) ieee p2413,

O. Logvinov, B. Kraemer, C. Adams, J. Heiles, G. Stuebing, M. Nielsen, and B. Mancuso, “Standard for an architectural framework for the inter- net of things (iot) ieee p2413,” IEEE- P2413 Working Group. Technical Report, 2016

2016
[6]

Internet of Things (IoT) Security: State of the Art and Challenges,

O. Garcia-Morchon, S. Kumar, and M. Sethi, “Internet of Things (IoT) Security: State of the Art and Challenges,” RFC 8576, Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8576

2019
[7]

Quantum iot: A quantum approach in iot security maintenance,

M. S. Rahman and M. Hossam -E-Haider, “Quantum iot: A quantum approach in iot security maintenance,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics, Electrical and Signal Processing Techniques (ICREST) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 269–272

2019
[8]

Quantum computersaˆ threat on current cryptographic measures and possible solutions,

T. Niraula, A. Pokharel, A. Phuyal, P. Palikhel, and M. Pokharel, “Quantum computersaˆ threat on current cryptographic measures and possible solutions,” Int. J. Wirel. Microw. Technol , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 10–20, 2022

2022
[9]

National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, Quantum Computing: Progress and Prospects , E

E. National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, Quantum Computing: Progress and Prospects , E. Grumbling and M. Horowitz, Eds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25196/quantum- computing-progress-and-prospects

2019
[10]

Post -quantum cryp - tography techniques for secure communication in resource -constrained internet of things devices: A comprehensive survey,

S. Kumari, M. Singh, R. Singh, and H. Tewari, “Post -quantum cryp - tography techniques for secure communication in resource -constrained internet of things devices: A comprehensive survey,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 2047–2076, 2022

2047
[11]

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty -eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1996, pp. 212–219

1996
[12]

Gambetta

J. Gambetta. (2023) Breaking the 1,000 -qubit barrier with condor. The hardware and software for the era of quantum utility is here, IBM Quantum Blog. [Online]. Available: https://utimaco.com/news/blog - posts/quantum-computing-iot-industry-opportunities-and-threats

2023
[13]

Benchmarking the quantum cryptanalysis of symmetric, public-key and hash-based cryptographic schemes

V. Gheorghiu and M. Mosca, “Benchmarking the quantum cryptanalysis of symmetric, public-key and hash-based cryptographic schemes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02332, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1902
[14]

Nist elliptic curves,

D. Hankerson and A. Menezes, “Nist elliptic curves,” in Encyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy. Springer, 2021, pp. 1–3

2021
[15]

Hardware security for iot in the quantum era: Survey and challenges,

D. Dione, B. Seck, I. Diop, P.- L. Cayrel, D. Faye, and I. Gueye, “Hardware security for iot in the quantum era: Survey and challenges,” Journal of Information Security, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 227–249, 2023

2023
[16]

Status report on the third round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process,

G. Alagic, G. Alagic, D. Apon, D. Cooper, Q. Dang, T. Dang, J. Kelsey, J. Lichtinger, Y.-K. Liu, C. Miller et al., “Status report on the third round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process,” 2022

2022
[17]

Information and communication technology: Implications on patientaˆs privacy and security,

G. Calcagnini, F. Censi, and E. Mattei, “Information and communication technology: Implications on patientaˆs privacy and security,” in Medical Devices: Improving Health Care Through a Multidisciplinary Approach. Springer, 2022, pp. 129–138

2022
[18]

Migration to post -quantum cryptography: Quantum readiness: Testing draft standards,

NIST, “Migration to post -quantum cryptography: Quantum readiness: Testing draft standards,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 1800 -38C, 2023, online. [Online]. Available: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/1800/38/iprd-(1)

2023
[19]

(2023) Canadian national quantum-readiness

Quantum-Readiness Working Group on the Canadian Federal Frame - work for Digital Infrastructure Resilience (CFDIR). (2023) Canadian national quantum-readiness. Online

2023
[20]

(2023) Etsi recommends a staged approach for migration

Utimaco. (2023) Etsi recommends a staged approach for migration. Post Quantum Cryptography: Different Angles to Address an Urgent Matter. [Online]. Available: https://utimaco.com/news/blog -posts/post- quantum-cryptography-different-angles-address-urgent-matter

2023
[21]

White, D

B. White, D. Andre, G. Arquero, R. Bajaj, J. Cronin, A. Dames, H. Lyksborg, A. Miranda, M. Weiss et al., Transitioning to quantum-safe cryptography on IBM Z. IBM Redbooks, 2023

2023
[22]

C. Bell. (2023) Building a quantum -safe future. Microsoft Blog. [On - line]. Available: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/05/31/building- a-quantum-safe-future/

2023
[23]

Caraf: crypto agility risk assessment framework,

C. Ma, L. Colon, J. Dera, B. Rashidi, and V. Garg, “Caraf: crypto agility risk assessment framework,” Journal of Cybersecurity , vol. 7, no. 1, p. tyab013, 2021

2021
[24]

(2023) Pqc migration guide

EVIDEN. (2023) Pqc migration guide. [Online]. Available: https://www.cryptovision.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/EVIDEN- PQC-Migration-Guide.pdf

2023
[25]

Moving forward with confidence: prepar- ing for a phased migration to post-quantum cryptography

GlobalPlatform. Moving forward with confidence: prepar- ing for a phased migration to post-quantum cryptography. Cited September 4, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://globalplatform.org/moving-forward-with-confidence- preparing-for-a-phased-migration-to-post-quantum-cryptography/

2024
[26]

J. aˆ. Lintzen. (2023) Pqc and how organizations are preparing for the quantum security era. Adopting a phased approach. [On- line]. Available: https://www.cryptomathic.com/news-events/blog/pqc- and-how-organizations-are-preparing-for-the-quantum-security-era

2023