Post-Quantum Readiness Fails Without Cryptographic Visibility

While large-scale quantum attacks may still be years away, the organisational risk associated with cryptography is already material. The challenge facing most enterprises today is not selecting post-quantum algorithms, but understanding the cryptography that already exists across their software estates.

Modern software relies heavily on inherited cryptography. Algorithms enter applications through open source dependencies, vendor products, legacy components, and copied code. Over time, this creates a fragmented cryptographic landscape that is rarely documented in a consistent or auditable way. Gartner identifies this lack of visibility as one of the primary blockers to post-quantum readiness, noting that 61% of organisations do not have full insight into their cryptographic systems.

This visibility gap matters because post-quantum migration is not a single technical upgrade. Gartner’s 2026 cybersecurity trends make clear that replacing classical cryptography will be a multi-year effort affecting applications, infrastructure, development practices, and vendor dependencies simultaneously. Without a factual inventory, organisations cannot realistically estimate timelines, costs, or risk exposure.

Regulatory and compliance pressure is accelerating this shift to action. Export control regimes already apply to software containing certain cryptographic functions, regardless of whether those functions originate in proprietary code or open source components. The Linux Foundation has highlighted persistent misunderstandings around how US export controls apply to open source software. In practice, downstream organisations distributing or embedding software often assume compliance obligations without realising it.

In Europe, the NIS2 Directive reinforces similar expectations from a cybersecurity and supply chain governance perspective. While NIS2 does not mandate specific algorithms, it raises the bar for demonstrable risk management and operational control. Organisations that cannot identify cryptographic usage within their software struggle to evidence proportionate security measures when incidents, audits, or supervisory reviews occur.

India has also published its national post-quantum cryptography roadmap outlining a phased approach to assessing cryptographic exposure, building inventories, and preparing for migration across government, critical infrastructure, and industry. The roadmap explicitly emphasises discovery, documentation, and crypto-agility as prerequisites for any transition, recognising that most organisations do not yet know where cryptography exists within their systems.

Gartner’s guidance is consistent across its research: cryptographic discovery and inventory are no-regrets actions. In its 4 Steps Toward Post-Quantum Readiness framework, Gartner places cryptographic inventory alongside governance and crypto-agility as foundational requirements. Without a complete and continuously maintained inventory, organisations risk missing critical assets, underestimating migration effort, and creating compliance gaps that surface late and expensively.

Addressing post-quantum risk in practice starts with establishing factual visibility into where cryptography exists. This is the role Crypto Finder is designed to play. By identifying cryptographic algorithms directly at source level across open source and proprietary code, it supports evidence-based assessment and prioritisation.

From a business perspective, the risk is not simply that post-quantum migration will be difficult. The greater risk is unmanaged uncertainty. Organisations without cryptographic visibility cannot prioritise assets, challenge vendor claims of readiness, or produce audit-ready evidence of progress.

Post-quantum readiness therefore begins with governance and visibility. Organisations must be able to identify where cryptography exists, how it is used, and how it enters the codebase. Only with this factual foundation can they plan phased migration, enforce crypto-agility, and align with evolving regulatory expectations.

If your organisation cannot currently explain its cryptographic posture with confidence, that gap represents a growing operational and compliance risk that will only become harder to address over time