As enterprises increasingly adopt multicloud architectures, bring your own key (BYOK) has become a fundamental pillar for maintaining data sovereignty and helping protect critical cloud workloads.
As enterprises increasingly adopt multicloud architectures, bring your own key (BYOK) has become a fundamental pillar for maintaining data sovereignty and helping protect critical cloud workloads.
Following our previous announcements of quantum-safe digital signatures and quantum-safe key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) in Cloud Key Management Service (Cloud KMS), we are excited to announce the preview of quantum-safe key import in Cloud KMS for software-based cryptographic keys.
Our updated quantum-safe BYOK capability, the first step of the next phase of our post-quantum cryptography (PQC) migration timeline, can help you protect your sensitive keys before a cryptographically-relevant quantum computer (CRQC) emerges.
As you adopt quantum-safe key import to help protect your keys in transit, you can also monitor your overall post-quantum posture with Cloud KMS PQC insights, now generally available. This high-level visual illustrates your asymmetric keys based on the categorization of the algorithms they use, and can help you plan for future modernization and support long-term resilience.
The threat: Store Now, Decrypt Later attacks Traditional key import methods rely on classical asymmetric encryption standards to wrap keys during transit. While these algorithms successfully defend against today’s threats, they will become fundamentally insecure when a viable quantum computer emerges that can potentially decrypt keys that adversaries have intercepted and stored.
Quantum-safe key import helps mitigate these store now, decrypt later (SNDL) attacks by wrapping your keys in a quantum-resistant envelope from day one.
In context
- Topic: Cloud y Arquitectura — Nube pública, híbrida, costos y decisiones de infraestructura.
- Source: Google Cloud Blog
- Published: 20/08/2026
Continue reading at the original source →
Excerpt published automatically by the site radar. The full text belongs to its publisher and is linked above.
Why it matters
After a few years, nearly every organisation that migrated discovers the same thing: the bill grows faster than the business. Not because the cloud is expensive, but because nobody switches off what is no longer used and nobody has the incentive to check.
I separate what moves for cost from what moves for capability. Migrating to save money almost never works; migrating to be able to do something you could not do before does. When the argument is only savings, it is worth checking the numbers again because they are usually incomplete.
What usually goes wrong
Where it usually breaks is team capability. The platform is new but people learned on the fly, with no time and no support. They end up replicating data-centre practices in the cloud, which means paying cloud prices for benefits that never arrive.
What to watch
- What happens when the provider has an outage, because it will, and what keeps running meanwhile.
- Three-year total cost with real growth, not the first-year promotion.
- How hard it would be to leave or move a piece to another provider, which is future negotiating power.
How I read this entry
If this fed into an infrastructure decision, I would ask for the three-year total cost with real growth built in, not year one with the entry discount. Most cloud surprises live in year two, when the discount ends and the volume has already gone up.
This entry is an excerpt from the original source, selected by the site radar. The commentary above is the site's own and does not belong to the cited publisher.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
