⚠ Official Notice: www.ijisrt.com is the official website of the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) Journal for research paper submission and publication. Please beware of fake or duplicate websites using the IJISRT name.



Performance Evaluation of Standardized and Candidate Post-Quantum Algorithms on Resource-Constrained Virtualized IoT


Authors : Yahaya Salisu; Sandeep Kumar; Surajo Nuhu Umar; Muhammad Dini Ibrahim; Umar Muhammad Tasiu

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mpjy66hu

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yc4d7hmh

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26aug297

Semantic Scholar

ResearchGate

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Quantum computing poses a significant threat to Internet of Things (IoT) communications that rely on classical cryptographic algorithms such as RSA, Diffie–Hellman, and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC). These algorithms are vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm, making long-term data security uncertain, particularly for IoT devices with extended operational lifespans. Post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms offer resistance to quantum attacks; however, their deployment on resource-constrained IoT devices remains challenging due to limitations in processing power, memory, and energy consumption. This study benchmarks seven Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs) ML-KEM, Kyber, NTRU, BIKE, Classic McEliece, FrodoKEM, and sntrup761 across key generation, encapsulation, and decapsulation operations. Experiments were conducted using the liboqs library in a virtualized Linux environment running WSL2 to simulate constrained computing conditions. Results revealed substantial performance differences among the algorithms. ML-KEM-512 achieved the best overall performance, completing all operations in under 14 µs, while Kyber-512 showed similar efficiency. NTRU provided the fastest encapsulation but incurred significantly higher key-generation costs. BIKE, FrodoKEM, and Classic McEliece exhibited execution times unsuitable for real-time IoT applications. Overall, lattice-based schemes, particularly ML-KEM and Kyber, emerged as the most practical PQC solutions for resource-constrained IoT environments. The findings also demonstrate the usefulness of virtualized benchmarking for deployment planning.

Keywords : IoT Security, ML-KEM, CRYSTALS-Kyber, NTRU, BIKE, FrodoKEM.

References :

  1. N. Shirisha, H. M. Manoj, S. J. Hussain, R. Kotoju, R. Kolikipogu, and A. Mohan, ‘Post-quantum security framework for resource-constrained systems: emerging trends, challenges, sustainability, and future directions’, Discov Computing, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 85, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10791-026-09982-2.
  2. 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.
  3. V. L. R. D. Costa, J. López, and M. V. Ribeiro, ‘A System-on-a-Chip Implementation of a Post-Quantum Cryptography Scheme for Smart Meter Data Communications’, Sensors, vol. 22, no. 19, p. 7214, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22197214.
  4. K. Cherkaoui Dekkaki, I. Tasic, and M.-D. Cano, ‘Exploring Post-Quantum Cryptography: Review and Directions for the Transition Process’, Technologies, vol. 12, no. 12, p. 241, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/technologies12120241.
  5. R. Asif, ‘Post-Quantum Cryptosystems for Internet-of-Things: A Survey on Lattice-Based Algorithms’, IoT, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–91, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/iot2010005.
  6. M. A. Ehsan, W. Alayed, A. U. Rehman, W. U. Hassan, and A. Zeeshan, ‘Post-Quantum KEMs for IoT: A Study of Kyber and NTRU’, Symmetry, vol. 17, no. 6, p. 881, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.3390/sym17060881.
  7. G. B. Satrya, Y. M. Agus, and A. B. Mnaouer, ‘A Comparative Study of Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithm Implementations for Secure and Efficient Energy Systems Monitoring’, Electronics, vol. 12, no. 18, p. 3824, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3390/electronics12183824.
  8. 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.
  9. F. Opiłka, M. Niemiec, M. Gagliardi, and M. A. Kourtis, ‘Performance Analysis of Post-Quantum Cryptography Algorithms for Digital Signature’, Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 4994, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3390/app14124994.
  10. K. Tran-Hoang and H. Nakajo, ‘Kyress: a secure, scalable, and resource-efficient CRYSTALS-Kyber cryptosystem for low-cost embedded devices’, J Supercomput, vol. 82, no. 2, p. 101, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1007/s11227-025-08178-7.
  11. 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.
  12. A. Kia, A. W. Storey, and M. Imtiaz, ‘Advanced Hardware Security on Embedded Processors: A 2026 Systematic Review’, Electronics, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 1135, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.3390/electronics15051135.
  13. D. Chawla and P. S. Mehra, ‘A roadmap from classical cryptography to post-quantum resistant cryptography for 5G-enabled IoT: Challenges, opportunities and solutions’, Internet of Things, vol. 24, p. 100950, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2023.100950.
  14. 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 of Things, vol. 27, p. 101228, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2024.101228.
  15. S. Kumari, M. Singh, R. Singh, and H. Tewari, ‘A post-quantum lattice based lightweight authentication and code-based hybrid encryption scheme for IoT devices’, Computer Networks, vol. 217, p. 109327, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109327.
  16. C. Ma, A. Shankar, S. Kumari, and C.-M. Chen, ‘A lightweight BRLWE-based post-quantum cryptosystem with side-channel resilience for IoT security’, Internet of Things, vol. 28, p. 101391, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2024.101391.
  17. M. G. Almutairi and F. T. Sheldon, ‘Methodology and Architecture for Benchmarking End-to-End PQC Protocol Resilience in an IoT Context’, IoT, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 17, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.3390/iot7010017.
  18. M. Kumar, ‘Post-quantum cryptography Algorithm’s standardization and performance analysis’, Array, vol. 15, p. 100242, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.array.2022.100242.
  19. J. Choi and J. Lee, ‘Secure and Scalable Internet of Things Model Using Post-Quantum MACsec’, Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 4215, May 2024, doi: 10.3390/app14104215.
  20. J.-A. Septien-Hernandez, M. Arellano-Vazquez, M. A. Contreras-Cruz, and J.-P. Ramirez-Paredes, ‘A Comparative Study of Post-Quantum Cryptosystems for Internet-of-Things Applications’, Sensors, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 489, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22020489.
  21. 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 of Things, vol. 33, p. 101650, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2025.101650.
  22. N. B. F. Silva, D. F. Pigatto, P. S. Martins, and K. R. L. J. C. Branco, ‘Case studies of performance evaluation of cryptographic algorithms for an embedded system and a general purpose computer’, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 60, pp. 130–143, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2015.10.007.
  23. M. Abbasi, F. Cardoso, P. Váz, J. Silva, and P. Martins, ‘A Practical Performance Benchmark of Post-Quantum Cryptography Across Heterogeneous Computing Environments’, Cryptography, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 32, May 2025, doi: 10.3390/cryptography9020032.
  24. L. Akçay and B. Ö. Yalçın, ‘Lightweight ASIP Design for Lattice-Based Post-quantum Cryptography Algorithms’, Arab J Sci Eng, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 835–849, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13369-024-08976-w.
  25. H. P. Nguyen and Y. Chen, ‘Lightweight, Post-Quantum Secure Cryptography Based on Ascon: Hardware Implementation in Automotive Applications’, Electronics, vol. 13, no. 22, p. 4550, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/electronics13224550.
  26. K. Shahbazi and S.-B. Ko, ‘Area and power efficient post-quantum cryptosystem for IoT resource-constrained devices’, Microprocessors and Microsystems, vol. 84, p. 104280, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.micpro.2021.104280.
  27. Y. Ji and E. Dubrova, ‘A side-channel attack on a masked hardware implementation of CRYSTALS-Kyber’, J Cryptogr Eng, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 7, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13389-025-00375-7.
  28. F. Oberhansl, T. Fritzmann, T. Pöppelmann, D. Basu Roy, and G. Sigl, ‘Uniform instruction set extensions for multiplications in contemporary and post-quantum cryptography’, J Cryptogr Eng, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–18, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13389-023-00332-2.
  29. T. Hasija, K. R. Ramkumar, A. Kaur, and M. S. Bali, ‘Exploring the landscape of post quantum cryptography: a bibliometric analysis of emerging trends and research impact’, J Big Data, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 225, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40537-025-01269-5.

Quantum computing poses a significant threat to Internet of Things (IoT) communications that rely on classical cryptographic algorithms such as RSA, Diffie–Hellman, and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC). These algorithms are vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm, making long-term data security uncertain, particularly for IoT devices with extended operational lifespans. Post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms offer resistance to quantum attacks; however, their deployment on resource-constrained IoT devices remains challenging due to limitations in processing power, memory, and energy consumption. This study benchmarks seven Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs) ML-KEM, Kyber, NTRU, BIKE, Classic McEliece, FrodoKEM, and sntrup761 across key generation, encapsulation, and decapsulation operations. Experiments were conducted using the liboqs library in a virtualized Linux environment running WSL2 to simulate constrained computing conditions. Results revealed substantial performance differences among the algorithms. ML-KEM-512 achieved the best overall performance, completing all operations in under 14 µs, while Kyber-512 showed similar efficiency. NTRU provided the fastest encapsulation but incurred significantly higher key-generation costs. BIKE, FrodoKEM, and Classic McEliece exhibited execution times unsuitable for real-time IoT applications. Overall, lattice-based schemes, particularly ML-KEM and Kyber, emerged as the most practical PQC solutions for resource-constrained IoT environments. The findings also demonstrate the usefulness of virtualized benchmarking for deployment planning.

Keywords : IoT Security, ML-KEM, CRYSTALS-Kyber, NTRU, BIKE, FrodoKEM.

Paper Submission Last Date
31 - August - 2026

SUBMIT YOUR PAPER CALL FOR PAPERS
Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe