FIPS 203 ML-KEM vs Other Post-Quantum Algorithms

Introduction to Post-Quantum Cryptography

As quantum computing advances, the need for quantum-safe cryptographic solutions becomes critical. FIPS 203 standardises the Kyber algorithm as ML-KEM for key encapsulation, but other post-quantum algorithms like FrodoKEM offer alternative approaches. This page compares FIPS 203 (Kyber) with FrodoKEM and other notable algorithms to help you choose the right solution for your needs.

Comparison of Post-Quantum Algorithms

Below is a comparison of key features across different post-quantum cryptographic algorithms:

• Kyber (ML-KEM in FIPS 203)
  • Security: Based on the Module Learning With Errors (MLWE) problem, considered secure against quantum attacks.
  • Performance: Fast key generation and encapsulation, suitable for real-time applications.
  • Key Sizes: Relatively small public and private keys (e.g., 800 bytes for ML-KEM-512).
  • Use Cases: Ideal for secure key exchange in web communications, VPNs, and other online services.
• FrodoKEM
  • Security: Based on the Learning With Errors (LWE) problem, also quantum-resistant but with different assumptions.
  • Performance: Slower than Kyber due to larger matrix operations, but still practical for many applications.
  • Key Sizes: Larger keys compared to Kyber (e.g., around 10 KB for FrodoKEM-640).
  • Use Cases: Suitable for scenarios where larger key sizes are acceptable, such as secure email or long-term data protection.
• CRYSTALS-Dilithium
  • Security: A lattice-based digital signature scheme, not a KEM, but often mentioned in post-quantum discussions.
  • Performance: Fast signature generation and verification.
  • Key Sizes: Moderate key sizes.
  • Use Cases: Best for digital signatures, not directly comparable to KEMs like Kyber or FrodoKEM.
• Classic McEliece
  • Security: Based on error-correcting codes, highly secure but with large key sizes.
  • Performance: Slower operations due to large keys.
  • Key Sizes: Very large public keys (e.g., hundreds of kilobytes).
  • Use Cases: Suitable for applications where key size is not a constraint, such as secure storage.

Why Kyber Was Chosen for FIPS 203

Kyber's selection for FIPS 203 is due to its excellent balance of security and efficiency. Its structured lattices allow for compact keys and fast operations, making it ideal for a wide range of applications. Additionally, Kyber's parameter sets (ML-KEM-512, 768, 1024) offer flexibility to match different security requirements.

FrodoKEM: A Conservative Alternative

FrodoKEM, based on the LWE problem, offers a conservative security approach with well-understood cryptographic assumptions. While its larger key sizes may limit its use in bandwidth-constrained environments, it provides a robust alternative for applications where security is paramount. Explore our FrodoKEM tools to see how it can fit into your security strategy.

Conclusion

Whether you choose FIPS 203's Kyber for its efficiency or FrodoKEM for its conservative security, Kyber Club offers tools to implement both. Start with our ML-KEM keypair generator or explore FrodoKEM for your quantum-safe needs.