Today, Dominic Bowen hosts Dr. Michele Mosca on The International Risk Podcast to explore the global urgency surrounding post-quantum cryptography and the risks quantum computing poses to modern infrastructure. They discuss how the question is no longer if but when quantum computers will break today’s encryption, the implications for global finance and critical systems, and what governments, businesses, and institutions must do now to prepare. Together they examine the pace of quantum innovation, the widening gap between technological capability and policy readiness, and the geopolitical competition shaping quantum research and security standards.

Dominic and Dr. Mosca also delve into the technical, economic, and diplomatic stakes of the quantum transition, from the “harvest-now, decrypt-later” threat to the cost and complexity of retrofitting global encryption systems. They explore how coordinated international governance, investment in post-quantum standards, and stronger public-private partnerships can build digital resilience before vulnerabilities are exploited.

Dr. Michele Mosca is Co-Founder and CEO of evolutionQ, a company providing quantum-safe cybersecurity solutions, and Co-Founder of the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo. He is also a founding member of the Cybersecurity and Privacy Institute and a leading authority on quantum-safe cryptography and risk management. His research and advisory work have helped shape international strategies for quantum readiness across finance, government, and global infrastructure sectors.

Drawing on decades of research and policy engagement, Dr. Mosca explains why societies must act now to secure their data and systems, how the transition to post-quantum cryptography can be managed effectively, and why this emerging field will define the resilience and trust of the digital age.

The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you’re a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.

Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe’s leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe’s leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe’s business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today’s business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.

The International Risk Podcast – Reducing risk by increasing knowledge.

Follow us on LinkedIn and

Tell us what you liked!

Transcript: Quantum Resilience and the Future of Cryptographic Security

[00:00:00] Michele Mosca:
The quantum threat to cryptography is really a blessing in disguise. It is a call to action to modernise the way we manage cryptography.

[00:00:13] Dominic Bowen:
Hi, I’m Dominic Bowen, and welcome to The International Risk Podcast, where we unpack the risks shaping our world with clarity and insight.

Today, we are turning our attention to the foundations of digital trust: the invisible protocols and cryptographic systems that protect everything from state secrets to financial systems and health records. As quantum computing moves from theory to real-world application, these foundations are coming under unprecedented strain.

To help us explore this, we’re joined by one of the world’s foremost experts on quantum risk and cryptographic strategy, Dr. Michele Mosca. He is a professor at the University of Waterloo, co-founder of the Institute for Quantum Computing, and CEO of EvolutionQ, which supports governments and industries in preparing for the quantum era.

Dr. Mosca joins us to discuss the path to quantum-safe infrastructure and why securing cryptography means more than just replacing algorithms—it means rethinking how we build trust.

Welcome to The International Risk Podcast.

[00:01:31] Michele Mosca:
Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.

[00:01:33] Dominic Bowen:
I’d love to start with a common misconception, one that even I held until recently: that quantum computing is still far in the future. Increasingly, that’s no longer the case. Governments, adversaries, and corporations are preparing to exploit and utilise this disruption.

Can we start there? Where are we today in the race for quantum computing?

[00:01:58] Michele Mosca:
Quantum computing is no longer just theoretical. For years now, there have been quantum computers available—through the cloud and elsewhere—that can perform certain computations far more efficiently than classical computers.

Until recently, these weren’t useful for real-world business problems, but that’s changing. More companies are now experimenting with quantum computing for applied R&D. While we haven’t seen a single breakthrough that has transformed an entire industry yet, we’re entering an era where businesses are actively exploring how quantum can help them.

When I entered this field nearly thirty years ago, I said there was no chance we’d have useful quantum computers capable of code-breaking within twenty years. I predicted that by then we’d have around twenty quantum bits, and that the path forward would be clearer. By 2016, that prediction came true, and since then progress has accelerated.

Today, I estimate a 10 percent chance of having large-scale, code-breaking quantum computers within five years, and a 30 percent chance within ten years. The likelihood increases each year as advances continue.

[00:03:20] Dominic Bowen:
Many of our listeners are policy advisors, politicians, and senior business leaders who may not have technical backgrounds. We know there’s been rapid progress—IBM breaking the thousand-qubit barrier, Microsoft unveiling a new processor, and other milestones from major players.

What does this actually mean in practical terms? How might governments and companies begin to use quantum computing in the near future?

[00:03:47] Michele Mosca:
Back in the 1990s, most scientists thought quantum computing was impossible because we couldn’t correct quantum errors. Even a tiny error rate would destroy the output after enough operations.

But by 1996, researchers realised that error correction for quantum information was theoretically possible. Over the last two decades, that theory has been validated and refined. Now, in the past few years, several groups have demonstrated that quantum error correction truly works—not just in theory but in practice.

We’re still at the early stages of large-scale correction, but the progress is extraordinary. Different platforms—superconducting circuits, trapped ions, photonics, and others—are all demonstrating similar milestones, proving this technology can scale.

The excitement stems from the fact that quantum computers handle information exponentially differently from classical ones. Each added qubit doubles the system’s complexity. Simulating even a few hundred qubits would require more matter than exists in the known universe.

That doesn’t mean a few hundred qubits can do everything, but there are growing classes of problems—such as optimisation, materials science, and molecular modelling—that quantum computers can solve exponentially faster. What’s changed now is that scientists and industry experts are collaborating closely to identify which real-world problems quantum computers are suited for.

[00:06:15] Dominic Bowen:
Before we dive into the risks, are there particular examples or case studies that make you especially optimistic about quantum computing’s benefits—whether for business, industry, or society?

[00:06:28] Michele Mosca:
One area that excites me is the design of new materials. Quantum computers could simulate the behaviour of materials at the molecular level to identify ones that, for example, store or conduct energy more efficiently.

This could revolutionise how we address global energy and climate challenges. Instead of physically synthesising trillions of combinations to find the right material, we could simulate and shortlist promising candidates.

Imagine materials capable of transmitting electricity with zero losses at room temperature—that would be transformative. Quantum computing could help us discover those possibilities much faster than current methods.

[00:07:40] Dominic Bowen:
That’s fascinating. I advise government actors and critical infrastructure providers weekly, and it’s clear quantum computing presents both opportunities and serious risks.

How should governments and critical infrastructure operators interpret the potential of quantum computing while preparing for the challenges, especially the threat of “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks?

[00:08:04] Michele Mosca:
They should start by assessing quantum risks through existing risk management frameworks—then adjust where those frameworks fall short.

Traditional risk management focuses on current threats, not emerging ones. But quantum computing introduces deferred risks: data encrypted today could be stored and decrypted later when quantum code-breaking becomes possible.

That’s a new kind of exposure. The “Mosca equation” helps quantify it by comparing three factors:

1. The shelf life of information (how long it must remain confidential),
2. The migration time (how long it takes to upgrade systems), and
3. The collapse time (how long until the threat materialises).

If your data must stay secure for longer than the time it will take to migrate and for quantum attacks to become viable, you’re already too late.

Many organisations lack vocabulary and tools for managing such long-term cyber risks, and that’s dangerous. We must also account for the scale of impact, or “blast radius,” and how long it lasts. These are essential to modern cyber risk models.

[00:10:46] Dominic Bowen:
I completely agree. Too often, risk managers rely only on likelihood and impact matrices. For complex, evolving risks like this, assessments must include migration feasibility, regulatory requirements, and velocity—how quickly risks can materialise.

There’s also a creative element to anticipating emerging risks. Organisations must scenario-test and understand residual risks before simply “accepting” them.

[00:11:34] Michele Mosca:
Exactly. And sometimes there’s a psychological barrier—leaders don’t want to uncover new problems. But avoidance just increases vulnerability.

We also see moral hazard at play. Cyber risks are highly correlated across entire ecosystems, like we saw in the 2008 financial crisis. No one firm feels solely responsible for systemic risk. CISOs are already overwhelmed managing known vulnerabilities, so emerging threats get deprioritised.

[00:13:12] Dominic Bowen:
That’s true. The Chief Risk Officer’s role is not to fix risks but to facilitate communication between security leaders, executives, and boards. Often they speak different languages, so bridging that gap is essential.

You and I spoke earlier about AI. Like AI, quantum computing raises questions about what we’ll wish we had done five or ten years from now. Looking back from the future, what do you think we’ll regret not doing in 2025?

[00:13:50] Michele Mosca:
We should start by asking three questions—questions we should already be asking for every technology.

The quantum threat to cryptography is a blessing in disguise because it forces us to modernise how we manage cryptography. The real market failure is complacency. We worry about vendor concentration or supply chain risks but ignore the fact that all our vendors rely on the same few cryptographic methods.

If an adversary breaks those codes, they could compromise countless systems simultaneously. Even if the probability is small, the impact would be catastrophic.

To mitigate this, organisations must:

• Understand the impact of cryptographic failure,
• Build recoverability through layered defences and diversity of cryptographic standards, and
• Develop agility to respond quickly.

We don’t need dozens of algorithms, but we do need more than one. And we need enough flexibility to meet different business continuity requirements—whether ten seconds or ten years.

This isn’t about zero risk; it’s about managing risk proactively. Too many organisations assume using standard cryptography means they’re safe. They also need inventory tracking, layered encryption, and response plans.

AI increases the urgency. It accelerates both quantum development and adversarial attacks. We must be quantum-ready and cryptographically resilient.

[00:18:32] Dominic Bowen:
That’s an important message. For many of my clients handling highly sensitive data, long-term confidentiality is essential.

Could you expand on “harvest now, decrypt later”? Which data sets are most vulnerable, and what should organisations prioritise?

[00:18:54] Michele Mosca:
This attack is crucial to understand because it demands early action. Adversaries can record encrypted data today and decrypt it years later.

Even organisations that don’t rely on long-term confidentiality must still prepare, because migration will take time. Governments have led the way here, preparing tools and standards others can now adopt.

For data transmitted through open networks, if confidentiality must be preserved for years, you should act immediately—ideally yesterday. Go as fast as possible, but no faster than you can safely manage, or you risk introducing new vulnerabilities.

Self-insurance is acceptable only if done responsibly: you must understand potential losses and have a mitigation plan. Simply ignoring the risk is not self-insurance.

Another major gap is communication across supply chains. Too many companies assume vendors will handle quantum migration, while vendors wait for customers to ask. This creates a dangerous cycle of inaction.

Every organisation should communicate its requirements to suppliers, even if the answer is “not yet.” That dialogue drives progress.

[00:23:35] Dominic Bowen:
That’s an excellent point. I’m currently in Europe, where the EU’s first instinct in managing risk is often more regulation. But with technologies like quantum computing, we also want to encourage innovation.

How can policymakers balance effective governance with flexibility and progress in this post-quantum era?

[00:23:58] Michele Mosca:
Regulation should always start by clearly defining the desired outcome. No one creates regulations to make things worse, but it’s easy to miss the mark.

Cybersecurity rules should focus on ensuring risks are mitigated, not prescribing rigid technical solutions. We want to enable innovation while maintaining safety—like requiring brakes and airbags for cars.

Governments must also act before crises occur. Once a cyber crisis hits, privacy and nuance go out the window. If we wait until the system breaks, we’ll respond reactively, not strategically.

I’m not against regulation; I’m against paralysis. Regulators often say, “We can’t require mitigations until they’re available or standardised.” Meanwhile, critical infrastructure providers say, “Our regulators haven’t told us to act,” and vendors say, “Our customers aren’t asking.” That creates a downward spiral of inaction.

We need proactive, principle-based governance that promotes responsibility and collaboration, especially where market failures exist.

[00:28:48] Dominic Bowen:
I like that—moving from theory to accountability. Market failures and institutional inertia are real concerns.

As we close, what is the risk that concerns you the most—whether from the technology itself or from how governments and businesses are preparing?

[00:29:09] Michele Mosca:
The problem isn’t technological capability—it’s the lack of political and business will. These issues consume capital now but pay off later, and humanity doesn’t have a great record of prioritising long-term gains.

When the internet first emerged, it didn’t matter much if it was insecure; the stakes were low. By the 1990s, as it became a business tool, security became essential. We made it secure, but not resilient. We assumed systems couldn’t be broken.

Now the internet underpins the global economy, and it’s about more than confidentiality—it’s about availability and control of critical systems. Losing that could mean losing a war. Yet we still operate with outdated playbooks.

AI, quantum, and other technologies give adversaries new tools to exploit foundational weaknesses. These are potentially game-changing threats, but we know how to mitigate them. We just need the will.

We must shift from mere security to resilience. We cannot predict every threat, but as the saying goes, “Plans are useless, but planning is everything.”

[00:33:45] Dominic Bowen:
That’s a powerful message. Dr. Mosca, thank you for joining us and for your insights today.

[00:33:51] Michele Mosca:
It’s been a pleasure. Keep up this important work.

[00:34:00] Dominic Bowen:
That was a thought-provoking conversation with Dr. Michele Mosca, a global leader in quantum-safe security and a long-standing advocate for strategic reform in the face of technological disruption.

He is a professor at the University of Waterloo and CEO of EvolutionQ. His message is clear: the time for cryptographic complacency is over.

This episode was produced and coordinated by Katerina Mazzucchelli. I’m Dominic Bowen, and you’ve been listening to The International Risk Podcast. Join us next week as we continue to explore the international risks shaping our world.