1. Executive
Summary
This report provides a
strategic framework for establishing and maintaining a robust enterprise
cryptographic policy. In a digital landscape defined by a constantly evolving
threat environment, cryptography is the fundamental pillar of digital trust and
security. A modern cryptographic policy must transcend a simple checklist of
algorithms and instead become a dynamic governance framework that ensures
confidentiality, integrity, authentication, and non-repudiation across all
organizational data and systems.1 This document outlines
the six minimal components of such a policy, as depicted in the user's query,
and provides an exhaustive analysis of each, drawing from leading governmental
and industry standards.
The core premise of this
report is the transition from a static to a dynamic security posture, with an
emphasis on "crypto-agility"—the capacity to swiftly adapt
cryptographic systems and protocols in response to emerging threats without
compromising operational continuity.2 The analysis reveals
that an effective cryptographic policy must be a living document, supported by
a formal governance structure, a comprehensive data classification scheme, a
full-lifecycle key management system, and a specialized incident response plan.
The recommendations herein are designed to prepare organizations for current
vulnerabilities, as well as the existential threat posed by future quantum
computing capabilities, by establishing a multi-year, multi-phased migration
roadmap. The report concludes with actionable recommendations for senior
leadership, including the mandate for FIPS-validated hardware and the
establishment of a dedicated program for the post-quantum cryptography (PQC)
transition.
2.
Introduction: The Mandate for a Robust Cryptographic Policy
Cryptography serves as
the bedrock of digital security, providing essential services that protect
sensitive information. These services include confidentiality, which makes data
unreadable to unauthorized entities; integrity, which protects data from accidental
or deliberate manipulation; authentication, which verifies an entity’s
identity; and non-repudiation, which provides irrefutable proof of a
transaction's origin.1 Given this critical
role, a formal, well-documented cryptographic policy is not a mere formality
but a strategic imperative. It provides a formalized set of guidelines that
dictate how cryptographic methods are applied throughout an organization, from
defining permissible encryption standards to outlining compliance requirements.3
The need for a dynamic
policy is underscored by a continuously shifting threat landscape. Attackers no
longer rely solely on brute-force methods but also exploit weaknesses in
algorithms, implementations, and key management practices.4 The most significant emerging threat is the advent of
large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computers, which will be capable of
efficiently solving the hard mathematical problems that underpin current
public-key cryptography (PKC).6 This future risk
necessitates a proactive, forward-looking policy.
This report frames the
solution to these challenges around the concept of "crypto-agility."
This principle is defined as an organization’s ability to rapidly replace
cryptographic algorithms and protocols without causing operational disruption or
introducing new security risks.2 It is a strategic
capability that allows an organization to retire weakened algorithms when they
are compromised, scale configurations as threats evolve, and maintain
operational continuity even in high-stakes environments.2 The subsequent sections will systematically expand on the six
core policy elements, providing a comprehensive guide for building a framework
founded on agility, governance, and resilience.
3. Approved
Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Sizes
A foundational component
of any cryptographic policy is a clear, unambiguous list of approved algorithms
and their corresponding minimum key sizes. These standards must be derived from
trusted, authoritative sources to ensure security and interoperability.
Current
Standards and Recommendations
The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) serves as a principal authority, publishing
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) that guide the development and
vetting of cryptographic guidance.1 A policy should mandate
the use of FIPS-validated algorithms and cryptographic modules, such as those
governed by FIPS 140-3.1
For U.S. national
security systems, the National Security Agency (NSA) provides specific guidance
through its Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA) Suite, which replaced
the previous Suite B in 2018.8 CNSA 1.0 defined a set
of cryptographic algorithms for protecting information up to the Top Secret
level, including:
●
Symmetric Encryption: Advanced Encryption
Standard (AES) with 256-bit keys.8
●
Key Exchange: Elliptic Curve
Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) with Curve P-384, or Diffie-Hellman (DH) with a minimum
3072-bit modulus.8
●
Digital Signatures: Elliptic Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) with Curve P-384, or RSA with a minimum 3072-bit
modulus.8
●
Hashing: Secure Hash Algorithm 2
(SHA-2) with 384 bits.8
The
NSA's decision to include RSA in the CNSA suite, which was previously a
temporary or legacy option in Suite B, is a notable strategic shift. It signals
a move away from an exclusive focus on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) and
indicates a preference for a more diversified cryptographic portfolio. This
move came amid speculation about potential vulnerabilities in ECC or other
non-technical reasons, demonstrating that a prudent cryptographic policy should
not rely on a single class of algorithms.9
The policy should also
establish minimum cryptographic strengths based on data classification,
mirroring standards from bodies like the Australian Cyber Security Centre
(ACSC). This tiered approach ensures that the level of protection is
commensurate with the value and sensitivity of the data. The following table
synthesizes recommendations from various sources to provide a clear, tiered
approach for an enterprise policy:
|
Data Classification |
Minimum Security Strength |
Symmetric Algorithm |
Asymmetric Key Exchange (DH/RSA) |
Asymmetric Digital Signature (ECDSA/RSA) |
Hash Function (SHA) |
|
Non-classified /
OFFICIAL: Sensitive |
112 bits |
AES-128, 3DES-168 |
2048-bit |
RSA-2048, ECC-224 |
SHA-256 |
|
SECRET |
128 bits |
AES-128, AES-256 |
3072-bit |
RSA-3072, ECC-256 |
SHA-256 |
|
TOP SECRET |
192 bits / 256 bits (CNSA) |
AES-256 |
3072-bit |
RSA-3072, ECC-384 |
SHA-384 |
A
cryptographic policy that only specifies algorithms is incomplete. The policy
must mandate where and how these
algorithms are executed, which leads to the critical role of hardware-backed
cryptography. FIPS 140-3 validation is not merely a stamp of approval for an
algorithm; it is a certification of the entire cryptographic module and its
secure execution environment.1 Hardware Security
Modules (HSMs) provide a tamper-resistant environment that protects keys from
exposure to a vulnerable host system or software layer. They can securely
generate, store, and perform cryptographic operations, preventing attackers
from stealing private keys from a web server's memory.11 The policy must therefore specify the use of FIPS-validated
hardware for high-value data and keys. This mandate is crucial, as hardware
limitations in Operational Technology (OT) and supply chains are a major
barrier to implementing a future-proof, crypto-agile policy.2
4. Transition
Plans for Weakened or Compromised Cryptographic Systems
A core principle of a
modern cryptographic policy is the capacity to transition away from algorithms
that have been weakened or compromised. This capability, known as
"crypto-agility," is the organizational capacity to rapidly and
seamlessly swap cryptographic algorithms and protocols without interrupting
business operations.2
Deprecation
Timelines and the Post-Quantum Transition
The recent history of
cryptographic standards provides a clear precedent for this process. The SHA-1
hash function, one of the first widely used methods of protecting electronic
information, has been formally retired by NIST.13 NIST first deprecated its use in 2011, disallowed its use for
digital signatures by federal agencies in 2013, and mandated its complete
phase-out by December 31, 2030.13 This deliberate, phased
approach to algorithm deprecation serves as a model for future transitions.
The next major
transition is the migration to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), which is
designed to be resistant to attacks from future quantum computers.6 The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and NIST have set
firm timelines for this transition. The NCSC has outlined a three-phase
timeline for organizations to complete their PQC migration by 2035, while NIST
is also driving the global transition by setting a 2030 deadline for the
deprecation of RSA-2048 and ECC-256 algorithms.15 This migration is not merely a future concern. The NSA, NCSC,
and others have identified the present risk of "harvest now, decrypt
later" attacks, where adversaries can collect today's encrypted data and
store it, waiting for a sufficiently powerful quantum computer to become
available for decryption.15 A forward-looking
cryptographic policy must acknowledge and actively mitigate this risk.
A comprehensive
cryptographic policy must recognize that the PQC transition is not a technical
project but a multi-year, strategic business program.6 It will require significant investment, coordination with
suppliers, and management of long-lived hardware and OT systems.2 An effective policy must therefore establish a phased roadmap
with clear milestones and C-level buy-in.
The following table
synthesizes guidance from NIST, CISA, and the NCSC into a consolidated roadmap
for the PQC transition.
|
Phase |
Timeframe |
Key Milestones |
Responsible Parties |
|
1: Discovery and
Planning |
Now–2028 |
Initiate cryptographic asset inventory and discovery exercise.
Identify high-priority services and long-lived data. Engage suppliers and
assess their PQC roadmaps. Begin developing a formal migration plan. |
CISO, IT Leadership, Business Unit Owners |
|
2: Early Migration and
Refinement |
2028–2031 |
Execute high-priority migration activities for critical
systems and those with long-lived hardware dependencies. Refine the plan
based on new NIST standards and available PQC implementations. |
IT Operations, Security Teams, Vendor Management |
|
3: Full-Scale
Completion |
2031–2035 |
Complete migration to PQC for all remaining systems, services,
and products. Meet all regulatory and industry deadlines for the deprecation
of legacy algorithms. |
All Business and IT Teams |
5. Operation
and Maintenance Procedures
A cryptographic policy
is only as effective as its governance. A robust policy must go beyond
technical specifications to establish a clear framework of roles,
responsibilities, and ongoing maintenance procedures.
Governance and
Roles
The policy must clearly
define who is accountable for its implementation and oversight. A clear model
is exemplified by the DWP Cryptographic Key Management Policy, which designates
a Chief Security Officer as the accountable owner and Digital Product Owners as
responsible for managing services within this governance framework.18
The policy should
mandate the creation and maintenance of a formal register of approved
cryptographic solutions. This register should detail the intended use of each
solution, its location, and any licensing requirements, ensuring it is
accessible to relevant business managers and IT specialists.18
|
Role |
Responsibility |
Accountability |
|
Chief Security Officer
(CSO) |
Policy ownership, maintenance, and review. |
Accountable |
|
Digital Product Owners
/ Cryptographic Leads |
Implementation of policy requirements within their services.
Annual review and compliance reporting. |
Accountable / Responsible |
|
Crypto-Authorized
Personnel |
Application of cryptographic methods and management of key
material. Incident reporting. |
Responsible |
|
All Employees |
Adherence to policy guidelines (e.g., password security,
screen locking). Incident reporting. |
Responsible |
|
DWP Suppliers |
Provide appropriate security measures for handling DWP
information and key material. |
Responsible |
|
Relevant Business
Managers / IT Specialists |
Consulted for expert advice and access to the register of
approved solutions. |
Consulted / Informed |
The
policy must also be a living document, subject to regular review cycles to
ensure it remains current with evolving threats, technologies, and
international standards. NIST, for example, revised its own standards
development process in response to public concerns to foster trust and
transparency.7 Similarly, an internal
policy must be transparent and regularly updated to remain relevant.
A comprehensive policy
must be more than a guideline; it must be enforceable. The DWP policy
explicitly states that contraventions may result in disciplinary action.18 This legal and disciplinary dimension transforms the policy
from a technical document into a formal, binding mandate. It must also mandate
ongoing, role-specific training for all employees, as the human factor is a key
vulnerability.18
6. Selection
Criteria and Process for Determining Data Encryption
Effective encryption is
predicated on a sound data classification policy. This policy, which must be a
prerequisite for any cryptographic controls, establishes a tiered approach
(e.g., Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted) that ties the required level
of protection to the data's sensitivity and potential impact if compromised.22
A Data-Centric
Approach to Encryption
The policy must specify
a differentiated approach for data "at rest" (stored on IT equipment
or media) and data "in transit" (communicated over a network).1 While highly sensitive data may require encryption in both
states, less sensitive data may only need encryption at rest.23 The policy should mandate full disk encryption for data at rest
and the use of secure protocols like Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs) for data in transit.1
Encryption is a tiered,
not a binary, control. It should not simply be a matter of "on or
off." Instead, a policy must establish a detailed mapping from data
classification to a specific set of cryptographic requirements, as exemplified
by the varying key strengths recommended for different data classifications.1 Technologies like Microsoft Purview’s sensitivity labels can
automate this process, allowing for granular, role-based controls such as
granting different permissions (e.g., Editor, Viewer, No Copy/Forward) to
different user groups based on the applied label.26
The policy must also
align with legal and regulatory obligations. While regulations like GDPR and
PCI DSS may not explicitly mandate encryption, they require organizations to
"maintain appropriate technical and organizational measures" to protect
sensitive data.18 Encryption is a key
mechanism for demonstrating this compliance.
The following table
demonstrates how data classification serves as the central policy engine,
directly translating business needs into specific technical requirements.
|
Data Classification |
Example Data Types |
Required Encryption |
Minimum Algorithm/Key Strength |
|
Public |
Public marketing content, Press releases |
None (unless required for integrity) |
N/A |
|
Internal |
Internal communications, General reports |
At Rest (End-user devices), In Transit (secure protocols) |
AES-128, TLS 1.2+ |
|
Confidential |
Customer PII, Vendor contracts |
Both At Rest and In Transit |
AES-128, RSA-2048, SHA-256 |
|
Restricted |
Financial records, R&D data, Strategic plans |
Both At Rest and In Transit, with granular access controls |
AES-256, RSA-3072, SHA-384 (CNSA) |
7. Key
Generation, Escrow, and Secure Destruction
The security of
cryptographic systems is entirely dependent on the secure management of their
keys. A comprehensive policy must govern the entire cryptographic key
lifecycle, from creation to destruction.
The
Cryptographic Key Management Lifecycle
The key lifecycle is a
continuous process with six critical stages 28:
1.
Key Generation: Keys must be created
using secure, random or pseudorandom algorithms, preferably within a Hardware
Security Module (HSM) or a dedicated Key Management System (KMS).11
2.
Key Distribution: The policy must define
secure methods for transmitting keys to authorized entities. The challenge of
keeping symmetric keys secret during distribution is a major consideration.28
3.
Key Storage: Keys must be stored in
a secure, tamper-resistant environment to prevent unauthorized access. HSMs are
the industry standard for secure key storage, as they often meet strict
security standards like FIPS 140-2.11
4.
Key Usage: The policy must
implement robust access controls, such as role-based access control (RBAC) and
multi-factor authentication (MFA), to ensure keys are used only for their
designated purpose by authorized individuals.19
5.
Key Rotation: Regular, periodic
replacement of old keys with new ones is a critical security practice. This
limits the lifespan of a potentially compromised key and reduces the volume of
data encrypted with it.30
6.
Key Revocation and
Destruction: When
a key is no longer needed or is suspected of being compromised, it must be
revoked to prevent further use and securely destroyed to eliminate any
possibility of recovery.28
A
policy that only focuses on a single stage, such as key storage, is
insufficient. A weakness at any point in the process—from weak entropy during
generation to insecure distribution or a failure to rotate—can compromise the
entire system.5 The policy must
establish a holistic, end-to-end framework, often managed by a KMS, to enforce
controls at every stage of this lifecycle.12
Key Escrow and
Destruction
The policy must address
key escrow as a controlled backup mechanism to prevent permanent data loss in
cases of forgotten or lost keys.33 This involves a formal,
documented process that balances the risk of key disclosure against the risk of
business continuity loss.34 Key recovery
procedures, such as those provided by service providers, often require legal
documentation and consent from all relevant parties, highlighting the sensitive
nature of the process.33
Finally, the policy must
specify the method for key termination. The removal of a key is not a single,
simple action. A mature policy must distinguish between:
●
Key Destruction: Removing an instance of
a key at a specific location, where information may still exist from which the
key can be reconstructed.
●
Key Deletion: Removing an instance of
a key and all information from which it can be reconstructed from a specific
location.
●
Key Termination: The complete removal of
all instances and information from all locations, making it impossible to
regenerate or reconstruct the key.29
The
policy should specify the appropriate level of removal based on the key's
importance and the context of its use, while also accounting for any legal data
retention requirements before final destruction.34
8. Incident
Reporting and Response for Cryptographic Failures
A cryptographic policy
must be backed by a specialized incident response plan to address the unique
challenges of a key loss or system compromise. A general cybersecurity plan is
insufficient, as it may not contain the specific, actionable steps required to
mitigate cryptographic-related risks.
A Phased
Incident Response Framework
The policy's incident
response section should adopt a widely accepted framework, such as the
six-phase model from the SANS Institute 35:
1.
Preparation: This phase involves
creating a specific playbook for cryptographic incidents, defining encrypted
communication streams, and establishing clear escalation paths.35
2.
Identification: This requires
continuous monitoring for anomalies that could signal a cryptographic failure,
such as the use of a deprecated algorithm or a suspicious login from an unusual
location.4
3.
Containment: The immediate steps to
isolate compromised systems, block malicious IPs, revoke compromised
credentials, and disable affected user accounts to prevent further damage.36
4.
Eradication and
Recovery: The
process of removing the root cause, such as replacing a compromised
cryptographic module, and restoring systems with new, secure keys and clean
backups.36 The policy must mandate that previous versions of a key are no
longer used for encryption and that data is re-encrypted with a new, valid key.31
5.
Lessons Learned: A post-mortem analysis
of the incident must be conducted to document what happened, evaluate the
response, and identify vulnerabilities or gaps in the organization’s security
posture.36 The findings from this analysis should be used to refine
policies and procedures and update employee training.36
A
cryptographic failure is a business and legal event, not just a technical one.
They can lead to fraud, regulatory penalties, and a long-term erosion of trust.5 The loss of a customer's encryption key, for instance, can be
an emotionally charged situation that requires formal legal documents for
recovery.33 Therefore, a comprehensive policy must mandate the involvement
of legal counsel and a communication plan for stakeholders and law enforcement
from the outset of an incident.36
9. Conclusion:
Strategic Recommendations for a Modern Cryptographic Policy
A modern cryptographic
policy must be a strategic, living document that is adaptable to new threats
and aligned with organizational risk appetite. It is a critical component of a
proactive security posture that provides a competitive advantage and a foundation
for digital trust. Based on the analysis, the following strategic
recommendations are provided for senior leadership:
1.
Mandate Standards and
Hardware-Backed Cryptography: Align all cryptographic implementations with FIPS and CNSA
standards. The policy should require the use of FIPS-validated hardware, such
as HSMs, for all key generation and storage, ensuring cryptographic operations
are performed in a tamper-resistant environment and are protected from software
vulnerabilities.11
2.
Embrace Crypto-Agility: Establish a formal,
multi-year program for the PQC transition. The policy should adopt the phased
roadmap to identify and prioritize systems for migration, addressing the
immediate risk of "harvest now, decrypt later" attacks and securing
the organization against the future quantum threat.15
3.
Establish Formal
Governance:
Create a formal governance framework with clear roles, responsibilities, and
accountability, mirroring models from organizations like the DWP.18 The policy must be a living document, subject to regular review
and update cycles, and must be enforceable with clear disciplinary consequences
for non-compliance.18
4.
Prioritize Data
Classification: The cryptographic policy must be a component of a larger data
security policy. Data classification should serve as the central engine for all
encryption decisions, establishing a tiered approach that maps data sensitivity
to specific cryptographic requirements, algorithms, and key strengths.22
5.
Secure the Entire Key
Lifecycle:
Implement a centralized Key Management System (KMS) to govern the entire key
lifecycle. This system must enforce controls from secure key generation and
distribution to periodic rotation and secure, formal destruction, preventing
weaknesses at any stage from compromising the entire system.28
6.
Develop Specialized
Incident Playbooks: Create a specialized incident response plan specifically for
cryptographic failures. This plan should go beyond general cybersecurity
measures and include specific, actionable steps for key revocation,
re-encryption, and legal and public relations coordination, recognizing the
unique technical, reputational, and legal risks involved.36
Works cited
1.
Guidelines
for cryptography | Cyber.gov.au, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.cyber.gov.au/resources-business-and-government/essential-cybersecurity/ism/cybersecurity-guidelines/guidelines-cryptography
2.
Navigating
Hardware Barriers in the Path to Crypto-Agility ..., accessed September 2,
2025, https://www.encryptionconsulting.com/navigating-hardware-barriers-in-the-path-to-crypto-agility/
3.
Cryptographic
Policies - Meegle, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.meegle.com/en_us/topics/cryptography/cryptographic-policies
4.
8
Types of Attack in Cryptography - International Security Journal, accessed
September 2, 2025, https://internationalsecurityjournal.com/types-of-attack-in-cryptography/
5.
Guide
to cryptographic failures: A 2025 OWASP Top 10 threat - Invicti, accessed
September 2, 2025, https://www.invicti.com/blog/web-security/cryptographic-failures/
6.
Timelines
for migration to post-quantum cryptography - NCSC.GOV.UK, accessed September 2,
2025, https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/pqc-migration-timelines
7.
Cryptographic
Standards and Guidelines Development Process | CSRC, accessed September 2,
2025, https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/crypto-standards-development-process
8.
NSA
Suite B Cryptography - Wikipedia, accessed September 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_B_Cryptography
9.
Commercial
National Security Algorithm Suite - Wikipedia, accessed September 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_National_Security_Algorithm_Suite
10.
Cryptographic
Key Length from NSA Commercial National Security Algorithm (2016), accessed
September 2, 2025, https://www.keylength.com/en/6/
11.
What
Is Hardware Security Module (HSM)? - Fortinet, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/hardware-security-module
12.
What
is a Hardware Security Module (HSM)? Definition and Related ..., accessed
September 2, 2025, https://www.yubico.com/resources/glossary/hardware-security-module/
13.
SHA-1
cryptographic algorithm's end of useful life - Stackscale, accessed September
2, 2025, https://www.stackscale.com/blog/sha-1-end-useful-life/
14.
NIST
Retires SHA-1 Cryptographic Algorithm, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/12/nist-retires-sha-1-cryptographic-algorithm
15.
Prepare
for NIST's Post-Quantum Cryptography deadline | Sectigo® Official, accessed
September 2, 2025, https://www.sectigo.com/resource-library/nist-move-towards-post-quantum-cryptography-pqc
16.
Cyber
chiefs unveil new roadmap for post-quantum cryptography migration, accessed
September 2, 2025, https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/pqc-migration-roadmap-unveiled
17.
Post-Quantum
Cryptography Initiative | CISA, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/quantum
18.
DWP
Cryptographic Key Management Policy - GOV.UK, accessed September 2, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ec67ee2e90e0754d08225c5/dwp-cryptographic-key-management-policy.pdf
19.
Data
Encryption Policy (DOC), accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.cde.state.co.us/dataprivacyandsecurity/dataencryptionpolicy
20.
Badges:
Encryption and Cryptography Essentials - IBM Training - Global, accessed
September 2, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/training/badge/encryption-and-cryptography-essentials
21.
Cryptography
I - Coursera, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.coursera.org/learn/crypto
22.
Data
Security Policies: Why They Matter and What They Contain - Palo Alto Networks,
accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/data-security-policy
23.
What
Is Data Classification? - Palo Alto Networks, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/data-classification
24.
www.paloaltonetworks.com,
accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/data-classification#:~:text=Data%20classification%20helps%20organizations%20determine,to%20be%20encrypted%20at%20rest.
25.
Data
Protection Policy Template | Netwrix, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.netwrix.com/data-security-policy-template.html
26.
Apply
encryption using sensitivity labels | Microsoft Learn, accessed September 2,
2025, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/encryption-sensitivity-labels
27.
Encryption
- A Complete Guide to Encoding Sensitive Customer Data, accessed September 2,
2025, https://www.privacyhelper.co.uk/knowledge-hub-articles/encryption-a-complete-guide-to-encoding-sensitive-customer-data/
28.
What
Is Key Management? | IBM, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/key-management
29.
Exploring
the Lifecycle of a Cryptographic Key - Cryptomathic, accessed September 2,
2025, https://www.cryptomathic.com/blog/exploring-the-lifecycle-of-a-cryptographic-key-
30.
Key
rotation | Cloud KMS, accessed September 2, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/kms/docs/key-rotation
31.
Key
Rotation - Entro Security, accessed September 2, 2025, https://entro.security/glossary/key-rotation/
32.
What
is Key Revocation Strategy? - Glossary - Training Camp, accessed September 2,
2025, https://trainingcamp.com/glossary/key-revocation-strategy/
33.
What
if a client forgets his encryption key? How does the Key Escrow process work?
How can I recover an encryption key?, accessed September 2, 2025, https://help.remote-backup.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/39/2/what-if-a-client-forgets-his-encryption-key-how-does-the-key-escrow-process-work-how-can-i-recover-an-encryption-key
34.
Encryption
key recovery | Cyberday content library, accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.cyberday.ai/library/encryption-key-recovery
35.
How
to Create an Incident Response Plan (Detailed Guide) | UpGuard, accessed
September 2, 2025, https://www.upguard.com/blog/creating-a-cyber-security-incident-response-plan
36.
How
to Build a Cyber Incident Response Plan: A Step-by-Step ..., accessed September
2, 2025, https://www.framegroup.com.au/how-to-build-a-cyber-incident-response-plan-a-step-by-step-guide/
37.
Compromised
Credentials Response Playbook - FRSecure, accessed September 2, 2025, https://frsecure.com/compromised-credentials-response-playbook/
No comments:
Post a Comment