Twenty years of molecule IP, protected by signatures that will not last that long.
Post-quantum signatures and encryption for batch records, LIMS and trial data, applied at the network without changing validated instruments, with evidence Part 11 and Annex 11 auditors can read.
Q-day is uncertain. The requirements for pharma and life sciences are not.
Nobody knows when a cryptographically relevant quantum computer will arrive (Q-day), but your cryptography requirements do not depend on that date. Four reasons to start now:
AI is already finding weaknesses in algorithms
Anthropic’s Claude Mythos preview found serious weaknesses in candidate algorithms without a quantum computer. Cryptography can fail before Q-day arrives.
Adversaries are harvesting encrypted data now
They are collecting molecule IP and trial data which hold value for twenty years or more, to decrypt when Q-day arrives: harvest now, decrypt later.
Regulators already require PQC migration
For a life sciences company that means the trustworthy electronic records and signatures 21 CFR Part 11 requires, the data integrity across the regulated lifecycle GxP and EU Annex 11 expect, and the cyber-device requirements FDA section 524B places on connected instruments.
Estimates for Q-day keep shrinking
Google has set 2029 as the target for its own migration. If yours is not finished in time, the foundation of LIMS, batch-record and trial-data systems is at risk.
Google’s 2029 target and resource estimates: QuSecure, April 2026. NIST IR 8547, initial public draft, November 2024. Anthropic, Claude Mythos preview, 2026.
Why use QuProtect?
Cryptography belongs in a layer you control and configure, not in application code.
No rewrite, no rip-and-replace
QuProtect moves critical and legacy systems to PQC in a fraction of the time and cost.
Discovery and remediation in one platform
Many PQC solutions stop at discovery and leave the fix to you.
Built for large, complex organizations with highly sensitive traffic
Developed with the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force.
Nothing is re-coded
A validated instrument cannot be re-coded without revalidation, so QuProtect does not ask for it.
The next migration is a configuration change
It is made from an Orchestrator you control, not run as another program.
Proven in production
Banco Sabadell validated post-quantum TLS in four months.
Use case in action
Your network, from the cryptography it runs today to the policy change that keeps it current. Move through the five steps, or click a number on the drawing.
-
Process and lab network
- Bioreactors and process lines cannot be upgraded
- Lab instruments cannot be upgraded
- Cold chain and environmental
-
Validated systems
- LIMS
- Batch records and MES
- eQMS and historian
-
Outside (not yours to change)
- CROs and partners
- Regulator submissions
- Cloud research platforms
Legacy cryptography, and what Q-day does to it
Bioreactors and lab instruments reach LIMS and the batch-record system on the TLS they were validated with, and those systems reach CROs, the regulator and cloud research platforms on TLS 1.2 with RSA key exchange. Traffic recorded today can be stored until a quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm recovers those keys, and the RSA signatures on the records are what it breaks first.
Sensors find the legacy negotiations and rank the violations
Reconnaissance sensors read what is on the lab and process network and record the cipher suites, protocols, certificates and keys in use, without touching a validated system. Each policy violation is ranked by severity: the instrument hops first, RSA key exchange on the partner and cloud links next.
Encryptors remediate at the network layer
A gateway around the process and lab network and sidecars beside LIMS, the batch-record system and the eQMS carry each hop over TLS 1.3 with NIST post-quantum key exchange, X25519MLKEM768, with ML-DSA identities on the systems that carry the signatures. No instrument is revalidated.
Data in transit is secured, and the CBOM proves it
Trial and pipeline data recorded in transit from now on is not readable by a future quantum computer, and the logged handshakes and signatures are the integrity trail. The CBOM lists each connection’s protocol, algorithm and certificate with no open violations, in the form Part 11 and Annex 11 auditors read.
Crypto-agility: the next algorithm is a policy change
When a standard moves, the Orchestrator pushes the new policy to each encryptor and the connections renegotiate, here from ML-KEM-768 to ML-KEM-1024, while production continues. It is a policy push, not a revalidation.
Other use cases
Inventory for Part 11 and Annex 11
A CBOM of the cryptography behind electronic records and signatures across the regulated lifecycle.
LIMS, batch records and eQMS
Sidecar encryptors with ML-DSA identities carry the records that carry the signatures.
FDA 524B connected instruments
Cyber-device requirements met at the network across 10 to 20 year lifecycles.
Integrity evidence
Logged handshakes and signatures as the trail Part 11 and Annex 11 auditors read.
Validated systems untouched
Gateway encryptors around the process and lab network, so no validated instrument changes.
CRO, regulator and cloud links
Trial and pipeline data leave the site over post-quantum TLS, so it is not readable later.
Certificate lifecycle
Automated provisioning and rotation across lab and manufacturing systems.
Algorithm change by policy
The next standard is a policy push, not a revalidation.