The Encryption Works.
It’s Everything Else that Doesn’t.

This paper does not propose a new cryptographic algorithm and doesn’t challenge the mathematical soundness of modern encryption. On the contrary, the historical records demonstrate that cryptographic primitives have largely held up under decades of scrutiny.
Instead, we examine a different and often overlooked dimension of security failure: the systems that deploy, authenticate, migrate, and operate cryptography over time.
As the global technology stack prepares for a post-quantum transition, attention has largely focused on algorithm replacement.
Far less attention has been paid to the operational reality of that transition—multi-decade coexistence, partial upgrades, credential inheritance, and the amplification of authentication risk during migration.
By reviewing real-world security incidents from the past decade, we argue that encryption rarely fails in isolation. Breaches emerge at the boundaries: credential management, identity propagation, system trust, and execution context.
The purpose of this paper is therefore not to announce a solution, but to open a discussion: if encryption continues to work, yet systems continue to fail, where should we direct post-quantum security efforts?
 
25 years of “crypto breaches.” Zero algorithm breaks.
The threat evolved from coding bugs to credential theft. But one thing never changed: the math held.

The Complete Picture: 2014-2025

AES-256 real-world breaks: zero.

Two Eras, Same Root Cause

2010s: Implementation Failures

  • Heartbleed: missing if statement
  • Equifax: default admin credentials, unpatched for months
  • Marriott: intruders lived in network for 4 years

2020s: Authentication Failures

  • Colonial Pipeline: VPN password on dark web, no MFA
  • Snowflake: credentials stolen in 2020, still valid in 2024
  • 23andMe: credential stuffing from reused passwords
  • ByBit: third-party key compromise

The attack surface shifted from code bugs to key management disasters.

The Numbers

Authentication Is the Weak Link

  • Equifax: default “admin” password on critical systems
  • Colonial Pipeline: No MFA on VPN
  • Snowflake victims: No MFA on cloud accounts
  • Change Healthcare: No MFA on Citrix
  • 23andMe: Users reusing passwords across services

We perfected encryption. But we neglected everything that protects the keys.

“More MFA” Is Not a Sufficient Answer

Multi-factor authentication has become the standard response to large-scale hacks, and for good reason: it increases the cost of account abuse and reduces the number of random attacks. However, MFA does not change the structure of authentication itself — it still depends on the protection, distribution, and correct use of secret data.
Passwords, private keys, recovery codes, hardware tokens, and enrolment states still need to be generated, stored, transferred, changed, revoked, and synchronised between systems and over time. Each step carries operational risk, especially in environments where systems evolve asynchronously.
As organisations prepare for post-quantum migration, these risks increase rather than decrease. Algorithms can be replaced within months, but authentication infrastructure persists for decades. During this transition period, systems must authenticate across mixed trust models, legacy components, third-party dependencies, and partially updated environments.
In this context, MFA improves security locally but does not solve the systemic problem: authentication mechanisms are still based on secrets, sensitive to migration, and vulnerable from an operational perspective.
We built an unbreakable vault—then left 16 billion copies of the key on the internet.

The authors are exploring system-level approaches that treat authentication as a physics-bound execution property rather than a key-management problem.

Enquire about V-LON – Unbreakable Authentication Platform