Post-Quantum Migration Strategy: Building Infrastructure That Outlasts Algorithms

Part of the Post-Quantum PKI Migration Guide

Executive Summary: Successful PQC migration isn't about choosing the right algorithm—it's about building infrastructure that makes algorithm changes routine instead of catastrophic. Organizations deploying PQC without crypto-agility infrastructure will spend 5-10x more on this transition, then face significant costs for every future algorithm change. Organizations that build protocol abstraction (like CertBridge) spend less than $1M once, then handle future transitions for 20 percent of the initial cost, or even as an operational task. The hard part isn't switching from RSA to ML-DSA—it's building the automation, trust management, and monitoring that makes switching trivial.

For Decision Makers: The Real PQC Migration Challenge

Before we discuss migration strategy: Understand why this matters. State-sponsored actors are already harvesting your encrypted data to decrypt it when quantum computers mature (2030-2032). For financial institutions, this isn't a future technology problem—it's immediate material risk to data encrypted since 2015.

Most Organizations Focus on the Wrong Question

What executives ask: "Which post-quantum algorithm should we deploy?"

What determines success: "Can we change algorithms without rearchitecting our infrastructure?"

Why this matters: Post-quantum algorithms (ML-KEM, ML-DSA) are standardized and well-understood. The cryptographic primitives work. Commercial PKI vendors support them.

What's hard:

• Discovering the 47,000 certificates you didn't know existed (typical: find 3-5x more than estimated)
• Migrating from manual certificate requests to automated protocols
• Building trust store management that works across 200+ applications
• Testing compatibility without breaking production
• Training teams on protocols they've never used (ACME, SCEP, EST)

The brutal reality: If renewing 100 certificates in production requires 3 weeks of planning and manual coordination, then migrating 50,000 certificates to post-quantum algorithms is impossible on federal/regulatory timelines.

Three Migration Approaches (Only One Works)

Organizations pursue PQC migration through three patterns. Two fail predictably. One succeeds.

Approach 1: Algorithm-First (Fails 80% of Time)

Pattern:

• Step 1: Select PQC-capable CA vendor
• Step 2: Discover vendor requires new client software/APIs
• Step 3: Realize applications are tightly coupled to old vendor
• Step 4: Spend 18-24 months rearchitecting integrations
• Step 5: Miss deadline, exceed budget by 2-4x

Why it fails: Optimizes for algorithm choice while ignoring infrastructure reality. Vendor lock-in creates multi-million dollar switching costs.

Cost: $5M-$8M for PQC migration + $5M-$8M for next algorithm change

Approach 2: Vendor-First (Fails 60% of Time)

Pattern:

• Step 1: Evaluate PQC-capable vendors (RFP process, demos, POCs)
• Step 2: Select "best" vendor based on features/price
• Step 3: Discover vendor's architecture requires application changes
• Step 4: Applications teams resist changes (other priorities, risk aversion)
• Step 5: Migration stalls, partial deployment, mixed infrastructure

Why it fails: Vendor selection before understanding operational requirements. Creates vendor lock-in that makes future changes equally expensive.

Cost: $3M-$6M for PQC migration + ongoing vendor lock-in costs

Approach 3: Infrastructure-First (Succeeds 90% of Time)

Pattern:

• Step 1: Build protocol abstraction (applications decoupled from CA choice)
• Step 2: Migrate applications to automated enrollment (ACME, SCEP, EST)
• Step 3: Deploy centralized trust management
• Step 4: Add PQC-capable CA as backend (routing decision, not migration)
• Step 5: Algorithm changes become policy updates

Why it succeeds: Solves operational problems first. CA vendor choice becomes secondary—can switch vendors via routing policy, not $2M migration projects.

Cost: $800K-$2.5M for infrastructure + $200K-$400K for PQC deployment + <$200K for future algorithm changes

This is why we built CertBridge: After rescuing 7 failed PQC/PKI migrations, we realized the industry's approach was fundamentally broken. Organizations need protocol abstraction BEFORE algorithm migration.

Timeline Reality Check

Federal deadline: 2030 for classified systems, 2035 for all federal infrastructure

Industry timeline: Financial services 2028-2032, Healthcare 2028-2032

Other industries' timeline: 2032 under peer pressure (or your board / CEO pressure)

What this means for starting in 2025:

Infrastructure-First Approach:

• 2025-2027: Build crypto-agility (protocol abstraction, automation, trust management)
• 2027-2029: Deploy PQC algorithms incrementally
• 2029-2030: Finalize transition, compliance validation
• Result: Deadline met comfortably, low risk

Algorithm-First Approach:

• 2025-2026: Vendor selection, contract negotiations
• 2026-2028: Discover vendor architecture requires application changes
• 2028-2030: Frantically rearchitect integrations
• Result: High stress, likely miss deadline or cut corners

The difference: Starting with infrastructure gives 2-3 years of learning and iteration. Starting with algorithms gives 6-12 months of crisis management.

Cost Comparison: 10-Year View

Infrastructure-First (CertBridge):

• Year 1: Infrastructure implementation ($1.2M)
• Year 2: PQC deployment ($300K)
• Years 3-5: Operations ($200K/year = $600K)
• Year 6: Next algorithm change ($150K)
• Years 7-10: Operations ($200K/year = $800K)
• 10-year total: $3.05M

Algorithm-First (Traditional):

• Years 1-2: PQC vendor migration ($5.5M)
• Years 3-5: Operations ($500K/year = $1.5M)
• Years 6-7: Next algorithm migration ($5M)
• Years 8-10: Operations ($500K/year = $1.5M)
• 10-year total: $13.5M

Savings: $10.45M over 10 years by building crypto-agility once vs. repeating vendor migrations

For Engineering Leaders: Building the Migration Strategy

Phase 1: Infrastructure Assessment & Capability Building

Objective: Understand current state, build missing capabilities

Duration: 12-18 months

Months 1-3: Discovery & Inventory

Complete certificate discovery:

• Network scanning for TLS certificates (public-facing and internal)
• Application inventory for embedded certificates
• Code signing and S/MIME certificate discovery
• IoT and device certificates
• Typical finding: 3-5x more certificates than initially estimated

Dependency mapping:

• Which applications trust which Certificate Authorities?
• Which applications are hard-coded to specific CA vendors?
• What happens if we change trust stores?
• Can we identify blast radius of CA changes?

Deliverable: Complete certificate inventory with dependency map

Months 4-6: Capability Gap Analysis

Assess current automation level:

• How are certificates requested? (Manual forms, vendor APIs, or protocols)
• How are certificates renewed? (Manual tracking, automated alerts, fully automated)
• How are trust stores managed? (Embedded in apps, OS-level, centralized)
• How are certificate changes deployed? (Manual, orchestration, fully automated)

Identify gaps relative to crypto-agility requirements:

• What percentage of certificates use manual processes?
• How long to deploy certificate change to production?
• Can we switch Certificate Authorities without application changes?
• Do we have monitoring and compliance reporting?

Deliverable: Gap analysis report with remediation priorities

Months 7-12: Architecture Design & Vendor Selection

Design protocol abstraction layer:

• ACME endpoint for TLS certificates
• simple RESTful integration protocol
• SCEP endpoint for Microsoft AD Integration
• EST endpoint if needed
• Backend CA routing based on certificate type and policy

Select deployment approach:

Option A: Build In-House

• Pros: Full control, no vendor dependencies
• Cons: 12-18 months development, ongoing maintenance burden
• Cost: $800K-$1.5M development + $200K-$400K annual maintenance
• Recommendation: Only for organizations with strong automation expertise

Option B: Deploy CertBridge

• Pros: Proven architecture, deployed in customer's AWS account, 4-6 weeks implementation
• Cons: Axelspire implementation required (but customer owns infrastructure after)
• Cost: $400K-$1.2M implementation + $70K-$230K annual operations
• Recommendation: Best for organizations wanting crypto-agility without multi-year development

Option C: Use Vendor's "Abstraction" Layer

• Pros: May be included with CA vendor licensing
• Cons: Still vendor-locked (abstraction layer IS the vendor), defeats purpose
• Cost: Appears cheaper upfront, much more expensive long-term
• Recommendation: Avoid—this is vendor lock-in with extra steps

Deliverable: Architecture design, vendor contracts, implementation timeline

Months 13-18: Pilot Implementation

Deploy protocol abstraction to non-production:

• Set up ACME/SCEP/EST endpoints in staging environment
• Integrate with existing CA (no algorithm changes yet)
• Migrate 10-20 pilot applications to protocol-based enrollment
• Test automation, monitoring, alerting
• Refine operational procedures

Deliverable: Operational protocol abstraction in staging, ready for production

Phase 2: Application Migration to Automated Enrollment

Objective: Decouple applications from CA vendor lock-in

Duration: 12-18 months

Months 19-24: Production Pilot (20% of Applications)

Select pilot applications:

• Low-risk, non-critical applications first
• Applications with engaged teams willing to collaborate
• Mix of different types (web apps, APIs, services) to test patterns
• Avoid high-risk production systems initially

Migration pattern per application:

1. Application requests certificate via ACME/SCEP/EST (not vendor API)
2. Protocol abstraction layer routes to backend CA
3. Certificate delivered to application automatically
4. Application deploys certificate with no manual steps
5. Renewal happens automatically 30-60 days before expiration

Deliverable: 20% of applications using protocol-based enrollment

Months 25-30: Accelerated Rollout (Next 40%)

Lessons learned from pilot:

• What patterns worked best?
• What compatibility issues emerged?
• How to handle edge cases (legacy apps, vendor-specific features)?
• Refine runbooks and documentation

Scale migration:

• Target 40-60% total coverage by month 30
• Focus on applications with active development teams
• Defer legacy systems to later phase
• Maintain velocity: 20-40 applications per month

Deliverable: 60% of applications using automated enrollment

Months 31-36: Final Migration (Remaining 40%)

Handle challenging cases:

• Legacy applications requiring custom integration
• Vendor-locked applications needing workarounds
• High-risk production systems needing extra testing
• Applications maintained by external contractors

Decommission decisions:

• Some legacy systems cannot be migrated cost-effectively
• Options: Isolate on separate network, accept classical-only algorithms, decommission
• Business case required for each legacy system

Deliverable: 90%+ of certificates using automated enrollment (remaining 10% documented as legacy exceptions)

Phase 3: Post-Quantum Algorithm Deployment

Objective: Deploy PQC algorithms using crypto-agile infrastructure

Duration: 12-18 months

With our 3AM protocol abstraction operational, PQC deployment becomes straightforward:

Months 37-42: Hybrid Certificate Testing

Add hybrid CA as CertBridge backend:

• Configure CertBridge to route to hybrid CA (classical + PQC)
• No application changes—applications still use ACME/SCEP/EST
• Policy determines which certificates get hybrid algorithms

Test in non-production:

• Deploy hybrid certificates to test environments
• Validate application compatibility (can they parse larger certificates?)
• Performance testing (CPU, memory, network impact)
• Trust chain validation (are both signatures verified?)

Identify compatibility issues:

• Legacy applications unable to parse hybrid certificates
• Network appliances with certificate size limits
• Mobile apps with timeout issues on slow networks
• Document workarounds or isolate incompatible systems

Deliverable: Hybrid certificates validated in test, compatibility issues documented

Months 43-48: Production Hybrid Deployment

Gradual rollout by risk level:

Low risk (Month 43-44):

• Internal tools, dev/test systems
• Non-customer-facing applications
• Quick rollback if issues detected
• CertBridge routes 10-20 percent of certificates to hybrid CA

Medium risk (Month 45-46):

• Employee-facing applications
• Internal APIs and services
• Business-critical but not customer-facing
• CertBridge routes 40-60% of certificates to hybrid CA

High risk (Month 47-48):

• Customer-facing websites and APIs
• Revenue-critical applications
• Payment processing, authentication systems
• CertBridge routes 80-90% of certificates to hybrid CA

Rollout mechanism: CertBridge policy changes, not application deployments

• Update routing policy: "Route certificates for [app group] to hybrid CA"
• Applications request certificates via ACME (same as before)
• CertBridge returns hybrid certificate instead of classical
• Application deploys automatically (no human intervention)
• Rollback: Change policy back to classical CA

Deliverable: Hybrid certificates deployed to production, <5 percent exceptions

Months 49-54: Classical Algorithm Removal

Transition from hybrid to PQC-only:

CertBridge routing evolution:

• Month 49-50: Add PQC-only CA as backend
• Month 50-51: Route new certificates to PQC-only (existing hybrid remain)
• Month 51-52: Hybrid certificates expire naturally (90-day lifespan)
• Month 52-53: 90+ percent certificates are PQC-only
• Month 54: Classical algorithms deprecated, PQC becomes default

Why gradual: Applications that can't support PQC-only become obvious during hybrid phase. Can isolate or decommission before full PQC transition.

Deliverable: PQC-only deployment complete, federal/regulatory compliance achieved

Technical Deep Dive: CertBridge Architecture for PQC

For teams implementing protocol abstraction

Why Protocol Abstraction Solves PQC Migration

Traditional PKI architecture creates tight coupling between applications and Certificate Authorities:

Application Code:
  CA_VENDOR_API.request_certificate(
    common_name = "app.example.com",
    api_key = VENDOR_API_KEY,
    algorithm = "RSA-2048"
  )

Problems with this approach:

1. Algorithm is application configuration: Changing to ML-DSA-65 requires changing application code
2. Vendor lock-in: Application knows vendor API, can't easily switch
3. No testing capability: Can't route 10 percent to new algorithm to test
4. Deployment complexity: Algorithm change = application deployment = change window = risk

Protocol abstraction decouples applications from CA implementation:

Application Code:
  ACME_CLIENT.request_certificate(
    domains = ["app.example.com"]
  )
  # Algorithm, CA vendor, routing = policy decisions, not code

What protocol abstraction enables:

1. Algorithm is policy: Change routing config, not application code
2. Vendor independence: Applications use standard protocols, don't know CA vendor
3. Incremental testing: Route subset of traffic to new CA/algorithm
4. Zero-touch deployment: Policy change propagates automatically

Axel 3AM Core Components

1. Protocol Endpoints (AWS Lambda + API Gateway)

ACME Endpoint:

• URL: https://3am.example.com/acme/directory
• Implements RFC 8555 (ACME protocol)
• Applications use standard ACME clients (certbot, acme-client, lego)
• No vendor-specific knowledge required

SCEP Endpoint:

• URL: https://3am.example.com/scep
• Implements RFC 8894 (SCEP protocol)
• Network devices, IoT, legacy systems use SCEP
• Simpler than ACME, widely supported

EST Endpoint:

• URL: https://3am.example.com/.well-known/est
• Implements RFC 7030 (EST protocol)
• High-security environments (DoD, financial services)
• Mutual TLS authentication, strong identity binding

Key insight: Applications never know which CA backend is used. They only know "request certificate via protocol."

2. Policy Engine (DynamoDB + Lambda)

Routing decisions based on:

• Certificate type (TLS, code signing, S/MIME)
• Environment (production, staging, development)
• Algorithm requirement (hybrid, classical, PQC-only)
• Compliance tags (PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC2)
• Application criticality (high, medium, low)

Policy changes take effect in seconds: Update DynamoDB, next certificate request uses new policy.

Rollback is trivial: Change policy back to classical CA, applications automatically get classical certificates on next renewal.

3. Backend CA Integrations (Pluggable)

CertBridge supports multiple backend CAs simultaneously:

Public CAs: Let's Encrypt, DigiCert, Sectigo

Private CAs: AWS Private CA, Microsoft AD CS, Google Certificate Authority Service

Specialized: Code signing CAs, S/MIME CAs

For PQC migration timeline:

• 2025: Classical CAs only (existing infrastructure)
• 2027: Add hybrid CA backend (RSA + ML-DSA)
• 2029: Add PQC-only CA backend (ML-DSA only)
• 2030: Deprecate classical backends

Key advantage: Adding new CA backend doesn't touch applications. They continue using ACME/SCEP/EST, CertBridge handles backend routing.

Vendor independence: If DigiCert raises prices 50 percent, switch to Sectigo backend via policy change. No application work required.

4. CMDB Integration (Event-Driven)

Certificate lifecycle events published to customer's asset management:

• Certificate issuance events
• Renewal events
• Revocation events
• Algorithm migration tracking

Event data includes:

• Certificate ID and common name
• Algorithm (e.g., "ML-DSA-65-RSA-PSS-2048" for hybrid)
• Issuer CA and validity period
• Application owner and environment

Continuous inventory reconciliation:

1. CertBridge scans network for active certificates
2. Compares with issued certificate database
3. Identifies discrepancies (shadow IT, deployment failures, expired certs still in use)
4. Alerts generated for investigation
5. CMDB updated with accurate state

Compliance reporting: Automated reports show PQC migration progress, algorithm distribution, compliance with federal timelines.

PQC Migration Workflow with CertBridge

Phase 1: Deploy CertBridge (Weeks 1-6)

Week 1:

• CertBridge infrastructure deployed to customer's AWS account
• ACME/SCEP/EST endpoints operational
• Integrated with existing classical CAs (no algorithm change yet)
• Test in staging environment

Weeks 2-4:

• CMDB integration configured
• Continuous certificate discovery running
• Monitoring and alerting operational
• Team training on CertBridge operations

Weeks 5-6:

• Pilot applications migrated to ACME/SCEP/EST enrollment
• Validate end-to-end: request → issue → deploy → renew
• Refine operational procedures

Result: Protocol abstraction operational, applications decoupled from CA choice (even though still using classical algorithms).

Phase 2: Migrate Applications (Months 2-18)

Month 2-3: Non-production migration

• All dev/test systems use CertBridge ACME/SCEP
• No more manual certificate requests
• Automated renewal operational

Month 4-9: Production pilot (20 percent)

• Low-risk production applications migrated
• Pattern: Application code updated to use ACME client
• Certificate deployment automated via orchestration
• Renewals happen automatically

Month 10-15: Production acceleration (next 40 percent)

• Scale migration to 60 percent total
• 20-40 applications per month
• Team expertise growing, velocity increasing

Month 16-18: Final migration (remaining 40 percent)

• Handle complex cases (legacy apps, vendor-locked systems)
• Document exceptions (systems that cannot be migrated)
• 90+ percent coverage achieved

Result: Applications request certificates via protocols, not vendor APIs. Ready for algorithm changes.

Phase 3: Add Hybrid CA Backend (Months 19-24)

Month 19:

• Configure hybrid CA (ML-DSA + RSA) as CertBridge backend
• Policy: Route 0 percent to hybrid initially (testing only)

Month 20:

• Policy: Route staging to hybrid CA
• Test application compatibility
• Performance benchmarking
• Identify issues early

Month 21-22:

• Policy: Route production low-risk to hybrid (20 percent)
• Monitor for compatibility issues
• Gradual rollout based on application criticality

Month 23-24:

• Policy: Route production medium/high-risk to hybrid (80+ percent)
• Hybrid certificates become default
• Classical-only exceptions documented

Key insight: Algorithm change is policy update, not application deployment. Rollout happens incrementally via routing decisions.

Phase 4: Transition to PQC-Only (Months 25-30)

Month 25:

• Add PQC-only CA (ML-DSA, no RSA) as CertBridge backend
• Policy: Route 0 percent initially

Month 26-27:

• Policy: Route new certificates to PQC-only
• Existing hybrid certificates expire naturally (90-day lifespan)
• Monitor expiration rate: hybrid → PQC-only transition

Month 28-29:

• 90+ percent certificates are PQC-only
• Classical algorithms deprecated
• Compliance validation

Month 30:

• Federal/regulatory deadline compliance achieved
• Classical-only exceptions isolated or decommissioned
• Migration complete

Result: Full post-quantum deployment via gradual policy changes, minimal disruption.

Common Migration Challenges & Solutions

Challenge 1: Unknown Certificate Inventory

Traditional approach: Spend 6-12 months on manual inventory, likely miss 20-30% of certificates.

CertBridge approach:

• Deploy CertBridge with continuous discovery
• Network scanning finds active certificates automatically
• CMDB integration maps certificates to applications
• Inventory improves over time as discovery runs continuously
• Migration proceeds even with incomplete initial inventory

Real example - Internet Company:

• Estimated: 8,000 certificates
• Discovery found: 23,000 certificates (3x estimate)
• Impact: Traditional approach would have required restarting project
• CertBridge: Discovery continued during migration, no timeline impact

Challenge 2: "Legacy applications can't support post-quantum certificates"

Symptoms:

• Application fails to parse certificates >8KB (PQC signatures are ~3.3KB)
• Cryptographic library doesn't recognize ML-DSA algorithm
• Performance issues on slow mobile networks (larger certificate = more bytes)

CertBridge solutions:

Option A: Proxy/Gateway

• Deploy TLS proxy in front of legacy application
• Proxy: PQC certificate to internet, classical certificate to legacy app
• Legacy app sees classical certificate, internet sees PQC
• Cost: Minimal (proxy software), Complexity: Low

Option B: Isolated Network

• Move legacy app to isolated network segment
• Allow classical-only certificates for isolated segment
• Document as exception for compliance
• Cost: Medium (network reconfiguration), Complexity: Medium

Option C: Decommission

• If legacy app has limited business value, decommission instead of migrate
• Accelerate replacement/modernization roadmap
• Cost: High (replacement), Complexity: High, but removes technical debt

CertBridge flexibility: Policy can route different certificates to different backend CAs. Legacy apps get classical, modern apps get PQC, all from same infrastructure.

Challenge 3: "Our change management process is too slow for algorithm migration"

Symptom: Certificate changes require 14-30 day approval cycles, making rapid iteration impossible.

CertBridge solution: Decouple certificate issuance from application deployment.

Categorize changes by risk:

Low Risk (No approval needed):

• Automated certificate renewals
• Same algorithm, same CA vendor
• CertBridge handles automatically

Medium Risk (Fast-track approval, 24-48 hours):

• Algorithm changes within established policy
• Example: Route app X from classical to hybrid CA
• Policy change, not application deployment

High Risk (Standard approval, 5-7 days):

• New CA vendor additions
• Significant algorithm policy changes
• Example: Add new post-quantum CA as backend

Emergency (Executive approval, under 4 hours):

• Certificate-related outages
• Critical security fixes
• Example: CA compromise, need to switch immediately

Impact: Most PQC migration work happens as "medium risk" policy changes, not "high risk" application deployments.

Challenge 4: "We're locked into current vendor, contract has 2 years remaining"

Traditional approach: Either:

• Pay contract termination fees ($500K-$2M typical)
• Wait 2 years, miss PQC deadlines
• Run parallel infrastructure (double costs)

CertBridge approach: Keep existing vendor, add PQC-capable vendor as additional backend.

Migration strategy:

• Year 1: Deploy CertBridge, keep existing vendor as primary backend
• Year 1-2: Migrate applications to protocol-based enrollment
• Year 2: Add PQC-capable vendor as secondary backend
• Year 2: Route new certificates to PQC vendor, existing vendor contract winds down naturally
• Year 2+: Can keep or remove old vendor based on business needs

Economic impact:

• No contract termination fees
• No "big bang" vendor migration
• Can evaluate PQC vendors based on actual performance (route 10 percent of traffic to test)

Challenge 5: "Performance concerns - PQC signatures are larger and slower"

Reality check: PQC signatures are FASTER to verify than RSA, but larger in size.

Actual performance data:

Signature Verification (Intel Xeon, per operation):

• RSA-2048: 0.5 ms
• ML-DSA-65: 0.1 ms (5x FASTER than RSA)

Signature Size:

• RSA-2048: 256 bytes
• ML-DSA-65: 3,309 bytes (13x LARGER than RSA)

TLS Handshake Impact (100 Mbps network):

• RSA certificate chain: ~4.5 KB, 0.36 ms transmission
• ML-DSA hybrid chain: ~15 KB, 1.2 ms transmission
• Added latency: 0.84 ms (negligible for most applications)

TLS Handshake Impact (4G mobile, 20 Mbps):

• RSA certificate chain: 1.8 ms transmission
• ML-DSA hybrid chain: 6 ms transmission
• Added latency: 4.2 ms (noticeable but acceptable)

When performance matters:

• High-latency networks (satellite, remote offices): Test impact
• High-volume TLS handshakes (>10,000/sec): Benchmark carefully
• Low-power IoT devices: May need hardware acceleration

CertBridge testing approach:

• Route 10 percent of traffic to PQC, measure latency/throughput
• Gradually increase if performance acceptable
• Roll back if performance degrades
• Can maintain classical for performance-sensitive apps, PQC for everything else

Post-Quantum Migration Services

We've implemented CertBridge for organizations ranging from 8,000 to 250,000 certificates, including major UK banks and Fortune 500 enterprises. Our post-quantum migration services cover every phase—from cryptographic inventory through quantum-resistant certificate deployment.

What we provide:

• CertBridge deployment in your AWS account (4-6 weeks)
• Application migration strategy (ACME/SCEP/EST protocols)
• Team training (operations, troubleshooting, policy management)
• PQC readiness planning (hybrid CA integration, testing procedures)
• Quantum-resistant infrastructure assessment and roadmap

What makes us different:

• We built CertBridge after rescuing 7 failed PKI migrations
• Customer owns everything (your AWS account, your data, your control)
• No vendor lock-in (backend CAs are interchangeable)
• Post-quantum ready (hybrid certificate support operational today)

Contact us for PQC migration strategy assessment

We'll honestly assess whether CertBridge fits your situation, or if a different approach makes more sense.

Related Resources

References

1. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards.
2. Internet Engineering Task Force. (2019). RFC 8555: Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME).
3. Internet Engineering Task Force. (2024). RFC 8894: Simple Certificate Enrollment Protocol (SCEP).
4. Internet Engineering Task Force. (2013). RFC 7030: Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST).
5. Forrester Consulting. (2024). The Total Economic Impact of Certificate Automation.