PoS smart-contract platform
Ethereum ETH
Ethereum has a comprehensive public cryptographic inventory and a detailed post-quantum roadmap, but no production quantum-safe protection. Spend authorization (ECDSA), consensus (BLS), and data availability commitments (KZG) remain entirely quantum-vulnerable. Migration has not started; no value is protected. The project is in active research and devnet phase (Stage 2, Mitigation/Development).
Roadmap Only
Category breakdown
QRI Factors
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
7.5 / 20
Migration Mechanism, Governance & Ecosystem Coordination
4.25 / 15
Migration Status & Value-at-Risk
0 / 25
Production Cryptographic Protection
0 / 35
Security Assessment & Evidence Preparedness
5 / 5
Critical Quantum Blockers
- Active production spend authorization remains entirely ECDSA-only.
- Material long-exposure quantum-vulnerable value (transacted EOAs) exists with no migration, freeze, or recovery path.
- Users can create new quantum-vulnerable high-value accounts (EOAs) by default.
- Consensus authentication (BLS) is quantum-vulnerable.
- KZG commitments used for data availability are quantum-vulnerable.
Key Risks
- All existing EOAs with exposed public keys are vulnerable to offline quantum attacks that could steal funds.
- New accounts are created vulnerable by default, so any new value is at risk.
- Validator consensus keys are vulnerable, potentially allowing fork attacks or finality compromise.
- KZG commitments could be broken, compromising data availability and potentially allowing invalid state transitions.
- No migration path exists for long-exposure dormant balances, and no policy to freeze or deprecate them.
- The P2P layer may be vulnerable, though its direct impact on asset security is lower.
Assurance Notes
- Ethereum Foundation formed a dedicated Post-Quantum Security team in January 2026, demonstrating organizational commitment to quantum risk assessment.
- Core PQ infrastructure milestones target ~2029; current production relies entirely on classical cryptography (ECDSA secp256k1, BLS12-381, KZG commitments).
- Active research and devnet work includes leanXMSS/leanVM for consensus and EIP-8141 for execution-layer account abstraction enabling signature agility.
- Independent audits of current production BLS/ECDSA/KZG implementations are stale or scope-mismatched; recent audits focus on staking libraries or unrelated components.
- Exact percentage of value-at-risk with long-exposure exposed public keys (transacted EOAs) vs. never-transacted accounts remains unresolved as of 2026-08-19.
- Governance status or proposals for handling dormant quantum-vulnerable balances (lost coins, abandoned contracts, unresponsive treasuries) are not publicly documented.
- Bridge/wrapper dependencies exposing ETH or major tokens to non-PQ systems are not deeply explored in this evaluation due to focus on base protocol scope.
Non-Scoring Caveats
- The absence of a formal quantum-specific incident response process is an operational gap.
- Exact percentage of value-at-risk with exposed public keys is not measured; the evaluation treats all value as unprotected.
- The PQ research is in early stages, and the target 2029 timeline is uncertain.
Evidence record
Claims and Caveats
Security Assessment & Evidence Preparedness
Public cryptographic inventory and quantum threat model
Claim: Ethereum has a public cryptographic inventory and threat model describing quantum-vulnerable primitives (ECDSA, BLS, KZG) and affected layers, supported by official documentation.
Coverage basis: inventory and threat model
Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Official documentation is comprehensive and current; dedicated Post-Quantum Security team formed January 2026.
Security Assessment & Evidence Preparedness
Public evidence record supporting the assessment
Claim: Public evidence record includes code references, specifications, and links to open-source research repositories.
Coverage basis: evidence record
Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Comprehensive public documentation available.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Spend authorization / transaction signatures
Claim: Ethereum mainnet uses ECDSA secp256k1 for transaction signatures; no PQC or hybrid scheme is available on mainnet.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: Active production spend authorization remains entirely ECDSA-only.
Assurance: EIP-8141 proposed for account abstraction enabling opt-in PQ signatures but not yet deployed.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Account, address, public-key exposure, and key derivation
Claim: Ethereum addresses reveal public keys upon transaction, creating long-exposure quantum-vulnerable ownership paths. No PQ/hybrid controls exist.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: Material long-exposure quantum-vulnerable value exists with no migration path.
Assurance: Exact percentage of transacted EOAs vs never-transacted accounts unresolved.
No announced policy for dormant accounts, lost coins, or abandoned contracts.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Consensus-critical authentication
Claim: Validator signatures use BLS12-381, which is quantum-vulnerable; no PQC/hybrid alternative in production.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: Consensus authentication is quantum-vulnerable.
Assurance: leanXMSS/leanVM in active devnet testing but not on mainnet.
Production Cryptographic Protection
State-integrity and data-availability mechanisms
Claim: EIP-4844 data availability uses KZG commitments, which are quantum-vulnerable; no quantum-safe alternative in production.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: KZG commitments are quantum-vulnerable and could compromise data availability.
Assurance: No announced replacement for KZG commitments to achieve quantum resistance.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Privacy and proof layers
Claim: Ethereum L1 does not include a native privacy or shielded transaction layer; user-level privacy is not part of the protocol.
Coverage basis: N/A
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Production Cryptographic Protection
P2P transport, node identity, and peer authentication
Claim: No evidence of quantum-safe P2P node identity or transport was found in the dossier; the network likely uses classical cryptography.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: operational/product caveat · Score treatment: note-only
Assurance: P2P identity compromise does not directly enable asset theft or consensus compromise.
Lower priority than spend authorization and consensus authentication.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Critical wallet, custody, HSM, signer, and hardware-wallet workflows
Claim: No wallet or custody support for PQ/hybrid spend authorization exists because no production PQ path exists.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: Wallet support will be required when PQ signatures are deployed.
Migration Status & Value-at-Risk
Percentage of economically relevant value-at-risk protected
Claim: No value is protected from quantum key-recovery attacks; coverage is 0%.
Coverage basis: migrated value
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: Material long-exposure value with no migration path.
Assurance: Coverage is 0% since no PQ protection is deployed.
Exact percentage of value-at-risk with exposed public keys is not measured; all value is treated as unprotected.
Migration Status & Value-at-Risk
Critical wallets migrated, protected, or inherently PQ-native
Claim: No critical wallets (treasuries, exchanges, etc.) have been migrated or protected.
Coverage basis: migrated value
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: No exchange or custody migration attestations exist.
Migration Status & Value-at-Risk
Legacy vulnerable pools identified, measurable, deprecated, migrated, frozen, or absent by design
Claim: Legacy vulnerable pools are not identified, measured, or deprecated; no freeze or burn policy exists.
Coverage basis: migrated value
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: quantum-critical uncertainty · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: Governance status for handling dormant quantum-vulnerable balances is unresolved.
No announced policy for unmigratable vulnerable value.
Migration Mechanism, Governance & Ecosystem Coordination
Public migration or protection roadmap
Claim: Ethereum has a public post-quantum roadmap with milestones, sequencing, and dependencies targeting ~2029.
Coverage basis: roadmap
Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Strong organizational commitment and public documentation.
Migration Mechanism, Governance & Ecosystem Coordination
Migration accessibility and defaults
Claim: No PQ/hybrid account creation, wallet tooling, custody paths, or migration prompts exist on mainnet. EIP-8141 proposed but not deployed.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: operational/product caveat · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: EIP-8141 proposal exists but is not yet finalized or deployed.
Partial credit for public proposal.
Migration Mechanism, Governance & Ecosystem Coordination
Migration enforcement and ecosystem coordination
Claim: No enforcement mechanisms, deprecation, or coordination for migration exist.
Coverage basis: migration enforcement
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: operational/product caveat · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: Coordination will be required when migration is live.
No deprecation, freeze, or mandatory migration mechanisms announced.
Migration Mechanism, Governance & Ecosystem Coordination
Emergency disclosure, incident response, or quantum governance
Claim: No specific quantum-related emergency disclosure, incident-response, or governance process is documented in the dossier.
Coverage basis: governance
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: note-only
Assurance: Absence of quantum-specific IR playbook does not affect current quantum-attack readiness since no PQ protection is deployed.
General incident-response processes exist but are not quantum-specific.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Standardized, standards-track, or broadly reviewed PQC algorithm selection
Claim: No production PQC algorithms are selected; research considers hash-based schemes (leanXMSS).
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Hash-based signatures are well-reviewed; leanXMSS is in active development.
Partial credit for prototype/testnet work.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Independent cryptographic and implementation audit
Claim: No independent audit of quantum-resistant implementation exists because no production PQ implementation exists.
Coverage basis: audit
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: Low
Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: confidence-only
Assurance: Recent audits focus on staking libraries or unrelated components; no current comprehensive audit of quantum-critical production implementations.
Audit gaps do not affect current quantum-attack readiness since production is entirely classical.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Open-source, reproducible implementation
Claim: No production PQ code is available; research code is open-source but not production-ready.
Coverage basis: open source
Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Strong open-source development practices; research repos publicly available.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Parameter agility and future upgrade path
Claim: No production PQ system, so no parameter agility is relevant. Roadmap emphasizes cryptographic agility; EIP-8141 proposes signature algorithm flexibility.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Parameter agility is emphasized in roadmap but not yet deployed.
Partial credit for proposed agility mechanisms.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Stateful-signature, side-channel, fault-injection, HSM, and custody implementation risks
Claim: No production PQ implementation, so no stateful-signature or side-channel controls are relevant.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: None
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Implementation risk controls will be evaluated when PQ signatures are deployed.
Not yet applicable since no PQ implementation exists.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Performance and resource-impact analysis
Claim: No performance analysis for PQ operations exists because no production PQ system exists.
Coverage basis: PQ/hybrid usage
Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: Performance analysis is ongoing in devnet environment.
Partial credit for active performance research.
Report metadata