Quantum Codebreaking Moves One Step Forward

The following excerpt is from Chapter 7 — ORF Global Quarterly | Energy and Tech: Powering the Future.

In terms of potential, quantum computing (QC) may be the holy grail of modern technology. The ability to control individual particles at the microscopic scale unlocks the enormous possibilities of exploiting purely quantum mechanical phenomena, fundamentally altering the collection, processing, and communication of information. At the same time, QC poses a significant cybersecurity threat in the form of Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers (CRQCs), which could break most current asymmetric encryption protocols^[1] and threaten the foundations of the global digital landscape.

Threats aside, the growth of QC technology has been impeded by quantum error correction (QEC) since its inception. Though superconducting qubits emerged as the most viable candidate for QC,^[2] overall progress remained relatively stagnant in the ensuing decades, largely due to a lack of scalability. In recent years, enhanced global interest and investment have opened new avenues for QEC while advancing existing frameworks.^[3] Though the field of QC is not mature enough to provide remarkable practical applications at the moment, recent developments serve to exemplify the asymmetric nature of quantum technology (QT) development and how multiple incremental advancements can potentially lead to overall progress.

As a result, it is becoming more likely that the next breakthrough will occur in the short run, especially given the rapid advancements in QEC and QC modalities such as neutral atoms and trapped ions.^[4] While this is a positive trend towards achieving practical and commercially relevant applications across a broad range of fields, progress towards fault tolerance also brings QC one step closer towards CRQCs. As such, the progressive trends in QEC are being accompanied by a universal push towards quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms through Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) migration.

Given its relatively limited investment capabilities and the dilemma posed by escalating export controls, the Global South must capitalise on these trends while identifying nationally relevant and optimal areas for capacity building. This would enable it to gradually carve out individual niches within the broader field of QC, while enabling simultaneous preparation for the threat posed by CRQCs through PQC migration strategies and implementation. Moreover, pursuing multilateral collaborations and initiatives would also be a prudent step towards addressing gaps in investment, infrastructure, and standardisation.

Unpacking Error Correction and Fault Tolerance

Quantum Error Correction: Similar to the role of bits in classical computing, QC relies on qubits, which are individual particles like electrons, photons, or atoms. The main impediment to QC comes in the form of decoherence or “noise”, which essentially refers to the decay of information^[5] carried by a qubit as a result of its interaction with the external environment.^[6] Another source of error is gate error, which can cause a quantum logic gate^[7] to give erroneous outputs due to noise, miscalibration, or other sources.

These errors are addressed by a set of algorithmic techniques known as Quantum Error Correction (QEC), which essentially combines multiple physical qubits^[8] into “logical” qubits, which are capable of performing meaningful operations and tasks.^[9] In order to do so, QEC entails running quantum algorithms repeatedly while extracting “error syndromes” (see Figure 1).^[10] These are subsequently fed into a classical computer, which suggests remediation and recovery steps. However, this process itself introduces a significant computational overhead, which necessitates the requirement for time efficient QEC algorithms.

Figure 1: Basic Steps of Quantum Error Correction

Source: Biercuk and Stace (2022)^[11]

In terms of its history, QEC began with the Shor Code proposed in 1995.^[12] Subsequently, the field has witnessed multiple advancements, particularly with the inception of topological codes^[13] such as surface and colour codes.

Figure 2: Evolution of Quantum Error Correction

Source: Chatterjee et al^[14]

Fault Tolerance: QC is currently in the era of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQs) computers, which seek to use a relatively limited number of “noisy”, or nonerror- corrected, qubits to perform useful tasks that provide a measurable computational advantage over classical computers.^[15] As QEC techniques, hardware, and control systems evolve, it is estimated that QC will eventually enter the era of Fault Tolerant Quantum Computers (FTQCs), which are large-scale quantum computers comprising millions of logical qubits, which provide a computational advantage over classical computers for a wide variety of applications, particularly with respect to performing accurate quantum simulations, which could have groundbreaking implications for fields like biology, chemistry, material discovery, optimisation problems, and machine learning, not to mention enhancing humanity’s fundamental understanding of natural laws and the universe. Multiple R&D and corporate institutions have published various roadmaps towards achieving fault tolerance. One example by Quantinuum is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Quantinuum’s Quantum Computing Development Roadmap

Source: Quantinuum^[16]

Historically, superconducting qubits constituted the most actively researched and well-developed modality of QC, largely due to hardware breakthroughs such as the development of transmon and fluxonium qubits,^[17] on the one hand, accompanied by the advancements in QEC via surface codes on the other.^[18] However, the prospect of fault tolerance remained elusive due to multiple reasons, primarily the lack of scalability.

Emerging Prospects in Error Correction

A notable development in the NISQ era has been the emergence of Quantum Error Mitigation (QEM), a set of passive alternative techniques designed to reduce error impact as opposed to the active feedback correction provided by QEC.^[19] Though the sampling costs involved with QEM can make them less relevant for FTQCs, techniques such as Zero Noise Exploitation (ZNE), Probabilistic Error Cancellation (PEC), and dynamical decoupling are proving to be quite effective when it comes to NISQs.^[20]

For instance, in 2024, Google’s Willow processor achieved a major milestone by demonstrating “below threshold” performance, implying that increasing the number of physical qubits exponentially reduces the error rate of logical qubits, a critical requirement for achieving fault tolerance.^[21] It utilised transmon qubits with surface code-based QEC alongside multiple QEM techniques, including dynamical decoupling.

Another recent advancement has been the emergence of new QEC paradigms such as the quantum low-density parity-check (qLDPC) codes, which have been particularly useful for other QC modalities like trapped ions and neutral atoms.^[22] This has even prompted corporations like IBM towards officially transitioning to qLDPC codes. A particularly important development was a paper by a research team from the California Institute of Technology, published in March 2026, which proposed a QC architecture based on neutral atoms and qLDPC-based error correction, which could potentially break ECC-256 encryption with 10,000 physical qubits and RSA-2048 encryption with 100,000 qubits, thereby accelerating the development of CRQCs.^[23],^[24] Similarly, in February 2026, Australian startup Iceberg Quantum announced its Pinnacle architecture, which uses a similar approach to bring down the physical qubit requirement for breaking RSA-2028.^[25] These advancements are particularly relevant since the RSA-2048 and ECC-256 encryption algorithms are utilised universally for various applications such as web browsing, email security, digital signatures, cryptocurrencies, and messaging apps.

These developments are in line with the gradually declining physical qubit requirement for CRQCs over the past 15 years, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Declining Physical Qubit Requirement for CRQCs (2010-2026)

Source: Cain et al (2026)^[26]

Other QC modalities such as electron spin and photonic qubits are also being actively explored, along with their respective QEC implementations, though these are relatively less developed at the time of writing.

The Future of Quantum Computing

The field of QC currently lies at a crossroad. On one hand, recent years have witnessed the emergence of positive trends in QEC and technical strides across multiple hardware platforms. Moreover, the increasingly important contribution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) towards QEC algorithms through tools such as Google’s AlphaQubit, coupled with the possibility of hybrid error correction architectures such as combined QEM-QEC frameworks, present promising possibilities for the future.^[27] Additionally, hybrid hardware architectures involving multiple QC modalities are also likely to provide emergent capabilities imminently. If these trends were to continue, the field could witness the emergence of FTQCs sooner than expected.

On the other hand, the path towards fault tolerance is still obstructed by hurdles. A primary issue stems from a lack of consensus on QC benchmarking. Currently, there are multiple benchmarks, including randomised benchmarking, random circuit sampling, quantum volume, and algorithmic qubits.^[28] Different companies, institutions, and countries utilise varying benchmarks rendering performance and progress assessment a particularly difficult task. Novel programmes such as DARPA’s Quantum Benchmark Initiative can help in this regard.^[29]

Furthermore, different QC modalities suffer from individual issues pertaining to QEC which must be overcome. For superconducting qubits, real-time decoding^[30] impedes scalability.^[31] At the same time, though neutral atoms and trapped ions are inherently more scalable, they suffer from slower operation times as compared to other modalities.^[32]

Another hurdle for QC stems not from QEC, but from the lack of hardware infrastructure and commercial scaling owing to the largely fragmented nature of quantum hardware supply chains coupled with unfocused national strategies.^[33] The situation is further exacerbated by multiple export controls on both QC hardware and the critical minerals required for a number of other nations across the European Union.^[34] This necessitates the development of sovereign supply chains in addition to enhanced international negotiation and cooperation.

Implications for the Global South: Building National Strengths

The importance of obtaining novel computational capabilities through FTQCs for the Global South cannot be overstated. FTQCs can provide novel capabilities in agriculture, material design, medicine, manufacturing, and unprecedented optimisation and simulation capabilities. Moreover, the prospect of CRQCs in the hands of any state renders most global databases and digital repositories highly vulnerable to mass-scale breaching. However, the dual-use nature of the technology has had the unfortunate consequence of rendering it open to arms and export control regulations by global powers. As such, in the absence of sovereign initiatives, the Global South risks getting potentially locked out of a technology that can offer it strategic advantages in the near future while essentially exposing its digital landscape to quantum-enabled cyberattacks.

While it may not be economically feasible for Global South nations to explore all emerging QC platforms, they can focus on avenues that identify with national strengths in addition to analysing and following emerging trends. For instance, given the formidable IT and software development workforce possessed by India, it can focus on QEM and QEC via open-source platforms such as IBM’s Qiskit which provide cloud access to quantum hardware. Given the criticality of error correction for QC, as well as QT in general, this would be an invaluable contribution to the field and may help the country carve out its niche. Other Global South countries can adopt similar approaches based on their relevant strengths within the overall QC stack, ensuring that they establish and retain their relevance as the technology continues to evolve.

At the same time, the rapidly emerging trends in QEC are being accompanied by a global push towards PQC implementation, with the majority of nations setting a target of 2035 for complete migration. Given the threat posed by CRQCs to the global digital architecture, the Global South must follow suit or face the future risk of coercion by more developed states possessing the technology. Global South nations must hasten their PQC migration strategies and pursue them aggressively if they wish to avoid catastrophic consequences in the future.

Conclusion: Instituting Multilateral Frameworks and Alliances

Owing to all the issues and caveats discussed in this article, pursuing QT in isolation is an arduous task for any nation, regardless of economic capabilities or geographical location. Consequently, in addition to building national strengths, the Global South should also consider developing multilateral frameworks for QT with like-minded nations. This would aid in addressing and bypassing the hurdles posed by export controls, economic constraints, and PQC standardisation and implementation. Similar arrangements are already being pursued by Global North countries via multiple NATO and EU initiatives on QT such as the Transatlantic Quantum Community and the Quantum Flagship programme, respectively.^[35]

In this context, pursuing partnerships with both, nations not intricately tied to any particular framework, and Global South states that are relatively underdeveloped in the field, could provide important collaborative opportunities. For instance, countries such as Finland, Spain, and Canada have wellestablished QC ecosystems and could potentially develop multilateral frameworks with Global South nations like India, Indonesia, Brazil, and South Africa, who are in the process of pursuing novel capabilities in QC.

Furthermore, against the backdrop of a nascent and fragmented global quantum hardware and critical mineral supply chain landscape, China has emerged as one of the few nations with a relatively well-established QT supply chain ecosystem.^[36] Consequently, regardless of existing geopolitical realities and tensions, it is in the interest of the Global South to invoke Chinese cooperation in aiding individual efforts. Given China’s active role in furthering Global South QT cooperation via the establishment of two inter-continental Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) links with BRICS nations such as Russia and South Africa, BRICS could serve as a viable platform for enhancing QT collaboration amongst Global South nations and can aid in keeping up with emerging trends in the field.^[37] Establishing a formal framework under BRICS would be a good starting point in this regard. Additionally, other established platforms such as Quantum Leap Africa and the Africa Quantum Consortium could also serve as valuable forums for enhancing Global South cooperation.

Prateek Tripathi is Associate Fellow, Centre for Security, Strategy, and Technology, ORF

^[1] Public-key cryptography is largely reliant on asymmetric encryption protocols which hinge on the inability of classical computers to solve a certain class of mathematical problems, namely, that of prime number factorisation. However, CRQCs are capable of doing so via Shor’s algorithm.

^[2] A qubit is the quantum analogue of the bit used in classical computers. Superconducting qubits utilise the unique properties of superconductors to encode information in the form of qubits.

^[3] Earl Campbell, “A Series of Fast-paced Advances in Quantum Error Correction,” Nature Reviews Physics, February 16, 2024, https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-024-00706-3.

^[4] Neutral atom qubits utilise arrays of uncharged atoms controlled through lasers. Trapped ions qubits use charged particles (ions) which are trapped using electric fields and manipulated by lasers.

^[5] Technically, decoherence can lead to bit-flip and phase-flip errors in a qubit’s state.

^[6] Emily Grumbling and Mark Horowitz, “Quantum Computing: Progress and Prospects,” National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019, https://doi.org/10.17226/25196.

^[7] A quantum logic gate is the quantum counterpart to classical logic gates used in typical computers. Though they are functionally similar, there are significant differences at an operational level.

^[8] A physical qubit refers to the actual hardware implementation of the qubit in a quantum computer whereas a logical qubit combines several error-corrected physical qubits and can perform fault-tolerant applications.

^[9] Joschka Roffe, “Quantum Error Correction: An Introductory Guide,” arXiv, July 25, 2019, https://arxiv.org/ abs/1907.11157.

^[10] Jens Eisert and John Preskill, “Mind the Gaps: The Fraught Road to Quantum Advantage,” arXiv, October 22, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19928.

^[11] Michael Biercuk and Thomas Stace, “Quantum Error Correction: Time to Make it Work,” IEEE Spectrum, June 26, 2022, https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-error-correction.

^[12] Roffe, “Quantum Error Correction: An Introductory Guide”.

^[13] While QEC began with relatively simpler repetition codes and the Shor Code, it got a significant boost with the development of topological codes which entail organising qubits in a 2D or 3D lattice. Topological codes are particularly suitable for achieving fault tolerance.

^[14] Avimita Chatterjee, Koustubh Phalak, and Swaroop Ghosh, “Quantum Error Correction for Dummies,” arXiv, April 18, 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08678.

^[15] John Preskill, “Beyond NISQ: The Megaquop Machine,” arXiv, February 24, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17368.

^[16] “Quantinuum Unveils Accelerated Roadmap to Achieve Universal, Fully Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing by 2030,” Quantinuum, September 10, 2024, https://www.quantinuum.com/press-releases/quantinuum-unveils-acceleratedroadmap- to-achieve-universal-fault-tolerant-quantum-computing-by-2030.

^[17] A transmon qubit is the most well-established hardware implementation of superconducting qubits. It uses a shunting capacitor which suppresses charge noise aiding significantly in error correction. A fluxonium qubit is a more recent implementation which uses a superinductor in addition to a capacitor, significantly enhancing coherence time.

^[18] Julian Jang-Jaccard, Philippe Caroff, Evan Blezinger, Valentin Mulder, Alain Mermoud, and Vincent Lenders, “Quantum Technologies: Trends and Implications for Cyber Defense,” Springer Nature, 2026, https://library.oapen.org/ handle/20.500.12657/109316.

^[19] Eisert and Preskill, “Mind the Gaps: The Fraught Road to Quantum Advantage”.

^[20] Jang-Jaccard et al, “Quantum Technologies: Trends and Implications for Cyber Defense”.

^[21] Hartmut Neven, “Meet Willow, Our State-of-the-art Quantum Chip,” Google, December 9, 2024, https://blog.google/ innovation-and-ai/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/.

^[22] Marin Ivezic, “Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check (qLDPC) Codes,” PostQuantum, March 4, 2026, https://postquantum. com/quantum-computing/quantum-low-density-parity-check-qldpc-codes/#4-industry-adoption-who-is-pursuingqldpc- codes-.

^[23] CRQCs are large-scale quantum computers capable of running Shor’s algorithm efficiently. They are capable of breaking most current encryption protocols and hence, constitute one of the most critical applications of QC.

^[24] Whitney Calvin, “Caltech Team Finds Useful Quantum Computers Could Be Built with as Few as 10,000 Qubits,” Caltech, March 31, 2026, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-team-finds-useful-quantum-computers-could-bebuilt- with-as-few-as-10000-qubits.

^[25] “Pinnacle and Series Seed,” Iceberg Quantum, February 13, 2026, https://www.iceberg-quantum.com/blog/pinnacle-andseries- seed.

^[26] Madelyn Cain, Qian Xu, Robbie King, Lewis R.B. Picard, Harry Levine, Manuel Endres, John Preskill, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Dolev Bluvstein, “Shor’s Algorithm is Possible with as Few as 10,000 Reconfigurable Atomic Qubits,” arXiv, March 30, 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28627.

^[27] “AlphaQubit Tackles One of Quantum Computing’s Biggest Challenges,” Google, November 20, 2024, https://blog. google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/google-deepmind/alphaqubit-quantum-error-correction/.

^[28] Marin Ivezic, “Quantum Computing Benchmarks: RCS, QV, AQ, and More,” PostQuantum, November 28, 2024, https:// postquantum.com/quantum-computing/quantum-computing-benchmarks/.

^[29] Prateek Tripathi, “DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative: A Make-or-Break for Quantum Computing,” Observer Research Foundation, May 6, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/darpa-s-quantum-benchmarking-initiativea- make-or-break-for-quantum-computing.

^[30] Real-time decoding refers to the extraction of error syndromes by classical computers which must have low latency and be achieved in real-time in order for the quantum computation to be performed optimally. For superconducting qubits, the latency requirements are particularly stringent (about 10 μs).

^[31] Preskill, “Beyond NISQ: The Megaquop Machine”.

^[32] Eisert and Preskill, “Mind the Gaps: The Fraught Road to Quantum Advantage”.

^[33] Constanza M. Vidal Bustamante and John Burke, “Quantum’s Industrial Moment,” Center for a New American Security, March 12, 2026, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/quantums-industrial-moment.

^[34] Prateek Tripathi, “Impediments in Global Quantum Technology Collaboration,” Observer Research Foundation, December 6, 2024, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/impediments-in-global-quantum-technology-collaboration.

^[35] Michal Krelina, “Military and Security Dimensions of Quantum Technologies: A Primer,” SIPRI, July 2025, https://www.sipri.org/publications/2025/other-publications/military-and-security-dimensions-quantum-technologiesprimer.

^[36] Constanza M. Vidal Bustamante and John Burke, “Quantum’s Industrial Moment,” Center for a New American Security, March 12, 2026, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/quantums-industrial-moment.

^[37] Matt Swayne, “China Establishes Quantum-Secure Communication Links with South Africa,” The Quantum Insider, March 14, 2025, https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/03/14/china-established-quantum-secure-communication-links-withsouth- africa/.