Mabits

Post-quantum

What a quantum computer breaks — and what it does not.

No computer today can break the encryption in a password manager. The problem is that a vault copied today can be kept, and your passwords, recovery addresses and one-time code seeds will still be worth reading on the day one can. This is what that means, and exactly where Mabits does something about it.

Harvest now, decrypt later

An attacker who breaches a server, or records traffic, gets ciphertext they cannot read yet. For most data that is the end of it. For a password manager it is not, because the contents do not expire: people reuse passwords, recovery email addresses outlive the jobs they were made for, and one-time code seeds and passkeys never rotate on their own. So the question is not whether a quantum computer can break this now, but whether the ciphertext will still be worth reading when one can. For passwords, it will.

Not everything needs to change

Already safe against a quantum computer

  • AES-256, which seals your vault. The best known quantum attack only halves its effective strength, leaving about 128 bits.
  • SHA-256 and SHA-3. At 256-bit output they keep enough resistance.
  • Your master password’s key derivation. Its strength is your password’s. A weak one falls to an ordinary computer long before a quantum one matters.

Broken outright by a quantum computer

  • RSA, Diffie-Hellman and elliptic curves. Shor’s algorithm breaks them all — and they are what most products use to hand a key from one account to another.

So the job is precise: replace the public-key cryptography, and leave AES-256 alone. Calling the vault’s cipher “post-quantum” would be marketing, not engineering.

Where Mabits uses post-quantum cryptography

Every key sealed to another account

Sharing an item, an organisation’s keys and an emergency contact’s access are all sealed to the recipient’s public key — the step Shor’s algorithm would break. In Mabits that step is X25519 and ML-KEM-768 together.

Every public key you trust

A shared key is only as good as knowing whose it is. Key bundles are signed with Ed25519 and ML-DSA-65, both required, so a forged key needs both signatures broken.

Nowhere it would be for show

Your own vault is AES-256-GCM, because that is already enough. There is no “post-quantum cipher” for the vault itself, because one is not needed.

Why hybrid, and why ML-KEM-768

Two locks, because one of them is new

ML-KEM is built on lattices, which are younger than elliptic curves and have had less time to be attacked. So Mabits never uses it alone: X-Wing hashes an X25519 secret and an ML-KEM secret together, with the X25519 public keys bound in so neither can be swapped, and the result needs both broken — a quantum computer for one, a classical break of lattices for the other.

The size the industry settled on

ML-KEM-768 is NIST security category 3, and it is the parameter set Chrome and Cloudflare already use to protect TLS. The larger 1024 set buys category 5 for keys about a third bigger, and would protect nothing more here: the vault behind it is AES-256, and category 3 already exceeds any realistic master password.

Checked against NIST, on every build

ML-KEM and ML-DSA are written in this project rather than pulled from a library, and every build runs them against NIST’s own test vectors — the only way a hand-written implementation earns trust.

What is not post-quantum, and why

A Send is not on this list because there is nothing in it for a quantum computer to break: its key is a random 256-bit secret carried in the link itself, not a public key. Its safety is who you give the link to.

The rest of the argument

Post-quantum sharing is one part of how a vault is protected. The rest — your keys, what the server can see, signing in — is on the security page.

What a post-quantum password manager protects, and what it does not — Mabits