TRANSPORT & PKI REVIEW
Transport is where harvested traffic becomes a future problem, and where most estates hold the least accurate map. A Transport & PKI Review establishes what your terminators actually negotiate, which chains they present, who issued them, and when each one expires. We follow the trust path from leaf certificate to internal root, including the authorities nobody has renewed an owner for. The result is a scored view of the transport layer that a platform team can act on and an auditor can read.
AutoPQC · transport map
- HIGH
api-gateway
ECDHE-P256
- MED
mtls-mesh
X25519
- MED
issuing-ca
RSA-3072 chain
- OK
ocsp-responder
SHA-256
- MAP
cdn-edge
hybrid-capable
terminators read · chains walked · exchange groups named
- Duration
- [PLACEHOLDER: engagement duration, Transport & PKI Review]
- Method
- theos-method-v1.0
- Surface
- Transport & PKI
- Depth
- Terminators · chains · CAs
- Artefact
- Layer report
- Standards
- FIPS 203 · CNSA 2.0
The starting point
Every handshake your estate makes today can be kept.
Transport is the layer with a recording problem: a session captured now does not need to be broken now. The certificates, the terminators and the chains behind them decide how much of today's traffic is worth keeping — and unlike most risk, this one is being accumulated by someone else, on their schedule.
Scope
In scope, and not in scope
In scope
- X.509 chains as presented: leaf, intermediates, roots, key types, key sizes, signature algorithms and validity windows.
- Certificate issuance paths, including internal certificate authorities, automated issuance, and material issued outside any documented process.
- TLS terminators, load balancers, reverse proxies, service meshes and API gateways, reviewed by negotiated result rather than by configuration file.
- Cipher suites and key exchange: what is offered, what is preferred, what is negotiated in practice, and which protocol versions remain reachable.
- Mutual TLS between services: client certificate inventory, rotation behaviour, and what happens to the trust path when an intermediate is replaced.
- Expiry exposure: which certificates lapse first, which are pinned, and which renewals need a change window rather than a script.
Not in scope
- Penetration testing. We read what a terminator presents and negotiates; we do not attempt to defeat it.
- Web application firewall tuning, denial-of-service resilience, and traffic-filtering policy generally.
- Cloud security posture management. A public storage bucket is a real finding and it is somebody else's engagement.
- Identity governance and access management policy. We review certificate-based machine identity, not human entitlement.
- Key recovery. If material is lost we cannot reconstruct it, and we will not attempt to.
- Anything on a public blockchain. No on-chain signatures, no address scanning, no contract review.
Surfaces
What we look at
01
Terminators and negotiated results
Every point where TLS terminates, and the suite, curve and protocol version actually agreed there. Configuration is evidence of intent; the handshake is evidence of behaviour.
02
Chains and trust anchors
The full path from leaf to root, the trust stores that accept it, and any anchor still trusted long after the reason for trusting it retired.
03
Issuance and renewal
How certificates are requested and issued, which paths are automated, and where a human still generates material by hand outside the inventory.
04
Internal certificate authorities
CA hierarchy, key protection, algorithm choices baked in at root creation, and the practical cost of changing any of them.
05
Service-to-service authentication
Mutual TLS deployments, client certificate lifetimes, rotation behaviour under load, and the blast radius of a failed intermediate swap.
06
Expiry and change cost
An ordered view of what lapses first, and for each item whether renewal is a routine job or a coordinated change across several teams.
Scoring
How it is scored
Findings are scored under the Theos Method across its five dimensions: Primitive Fragility, Confidentiality Horizon, Reachability, Change Cost and Substitution Gap. Transport tends to score high on Reachability, because an internet-facing terminator is available to anyone, and high on Confidentiality Horizon wherever the traffic carries records that stay sensitive for decades. Substitution Gap is what separates two otherwise identical findings: a terminator you control can be re-keyed, and an appliance whose vendor has shipped no post-quantum support cannot. The weights are published on the methodology page and are not repeated here.
Read the method specificationDeliverables
What you receive
01
Primary artefact
Exposure Register (CSV)
CSV, one row per asset
Every certificate, terminator and negotiated suite in scope, with its classification, score, tier and expiry date in one sortable file.
02
Posture Attestation
Signed attestation, reference format
TQ-PA-YYYY-XXXXXXThe signed record that the transport scope was assessed on a named date under a named method version, checkable at Attestation Lookup.
03
Remediation Sequencing Plan
PDF with a CSV work-item export
The order in which to re-key, re-issue and reconfigure, driven by expiry dates and change cost rather than by score alone.
04
Evidence Pack
Archive with a
sha256manifestHandshake captures, chain dumps and configuration snapshots behind each finding, hashed so a reviewer can confirm what was observed.
05
CBOM (CycloneDX)
CycloneDX JSON
The transport slice of the cryptographic bill of material, mergeable with an existing estate-wide CBOM instead of replacing it.
Evidence
Evidence and reproducibility
Each finding records the endpoint or store it came from, the observation that produced it, and the timestamp of that observation, because a negotiated suite is only true as of a moment. Scores are pinned to theos-method-v1.0, and the version is carried in every export so a figure quoted in a board pack can be traced back to the rules that produced it. A reviewer who wants to repeat the work rather than trust it should follow Reproducing our numbers.
The standards floor
What the work stands on
Eight standards, runtime and custody lines sit underneath every engagement in the catalogue. Each card names the groundwork the estate needs for it to land, and the failure mode it retires.
FIPS 203
ML-KEM — key establishment
The module-lattice key-encapsulation standard. It replaces classical key exchange in TLS 1.3 handshakes, tunnel establishment and key wrapping — the surfaces where traffic captured today can be stored against a future decryption.
- Groundwork
- A runtime line that can load a post-quantum provider, stated per service rather than assumed estate-wide.
- Risk retired
- Sessions recorded now being opened later, once the classical exchange underneath them falls.
FIPS 204
ML-DSA — digital signatures
The module-lattice signature standard, the replacement path for RSA and ECDSA signing across code, documents and server authentication. During a transition it runs alongside the classical signature rather than instead of it.
- Groundwork
- A signing pipeline that can carry two signatures on one artefact for the length of the transition window.
- Risk retired
- A forged release or a forged server identity signed by an algorithm that no longer resists forgery.
FIPS 205
SLH-DSA — hash-based signatures
The stateless hash-based signature standard: the conservative member of the family, resting on hash-function assumptions alone. Its natural home is firmware and other signatures that must still verify decades from now.
- Groundwork
- Room in the artefact path for a larger signature than the lattice schemes produce.
- Risk retired
- A structural surprise in lattice mathematics taking both primary schemes down at once.
Policy
CNSA 2.0 — the dated timeline
The published NSA algorithm suite sets dates, not suggestions: post-quantum operational across national-security systems by 2030, exclusive by 2035. Even estates far from that perimeter inherit its dates through their suppliers.
- Groundwork
- A register the timeline can be laid against, asset by asset, rather than a single estate-wide guess.
- Risk retired
- Discovering a contractual algorithm deadline in a procurement questionnaire instead of in your own plan.
Transition
Hybrid establishment — classical + ML-KEM
The transition posture for key establishment: derive the session from a classical curve and ML-KEM together, so a flaw in either primitive alone leaves the session standing. Mainstream clients already advertise the combined group.
- Groundwork
- TLS 1.3 endpoints, and visibility into which peers negotiate the hybrid group and which quietly do not.
- Risk retired
- Betting the confidentiality of day-one traffic on a single primitive, new or old.
Runtime
The provider-capable runtime line
Post-quantum negotiation arrives through the runtime, and an estate pinned to older lines does not negotiate it. The version actually loaded per service is a finding in its own right, not a build-system detail.
- Groundwork
- Retiring the oldest runtime pins — or naming them in the register as accepted, dated exceptions.
- Risk retired
- One service negotiating hybrid while its neighbour, one pin behind, silently falls back to classical.
Tooling
Open post-quantum tooling, pinned
The open-source implementations the ecosystem tests against. Where they appear in an estate we record the exact build, because a reviewed library and a deployed library are only the same thing if their hashes say so.
- Groundwork
- A pinned build with its hash recorded in the register, not a floating dependency.
- Risk retired
- Drift between the implementation that was reviewed and the one that ships the following quarter.
Custody
KMS and HSM key custody
Where the keys actually live. Managed key services and hardware modules are adding post-quantum key types on their own schedules, and custody boundaries — who can wrap, rotate, restore — decide how a migration lands there.
- Groundwork
- Audit access to key inventories and rotation policy. Key material itself never crosses the boundary.
- Risk retired
- A replica, backup or recovery region migrating out of step with the primary it must mirror.
Inputs
Inputs and duration
- Duration
- [PLACEHOLDER: engagement duration, Transport & PKI Review]
- Scope you nominate
- The hostnames, terminators, service meshes and certificate authorities in scope, agreed in writing before we begin.
- Access we need
- Read-only access to certificate inventories, terminator configuration, and a non-production environment representative of production.
- People we need
- The platform or network owner, whoever operates the internal CA, and one application owner for each externally reachable service.
- What we never ask for
- Private keys, certificate signing authority, production credentials, or any ability to change a live configuration.
- Handover
- A walkthrough of the sequencing plan with the teams who own the renewals, before the first change window is booked.
Questions
Questions we are asked
- Do you test our endpoints from the internet
- We observe what a terminator presents and negotiates, from a source and window you agree in advance. That is an observation, not an intrusion test, and it stops well short of attempting to defeat anything.
- We already have certificate lifecycle management. What does this add
- Lifecycle tooling tracks what it was told about. This review finds material outside it, records the algorithms and key sizes behind each chain, and scores what a break or a lapse would cost. Expiry management and exposure scoring are different questions.
- What this engagement will not tell you
- It will not tell you that your transport layer is safe, and it will not date the moment a given key exchange stops being adequate. It reports what is deployed, how exposed it is under a published method, and what replacing it would take. Adequacy against a specific regulator's expectation is a separate judgement, and we will say where that judgement sits with your assessor rather than with us.
- How do you treat hybrid key exchange
- As a transitional posture with a stated benefit and a stated cost. We record where hybrid modes are already available in your stack, what they negotiate, and what breaks when a peer does not support them.
- Which standards do you map findings to
- NIST FIPS 203 for key establishment, with FIPS 204 and 205 where certificate signature algorithms are in question, alongside the published CNSA 2.0 timeline for federal-facing systems.
Signed · Verifiable
Every engagement in the catalogue ends with a Posture Attestation you can verify.
The attestation names the scope, the method version and the date, and anyone holding its code can check it on this site.
Related reading
Three articles that go further
The scope conversation
Take Transport & PKI Review to a scope conversation
Tell us the estate you have in mind and we will walk through what this engagement would cover, what it would produce, and where its boundary sits — before anything is signed. If you would rather put questions in writing first, write to us instead.