Store-now-break-later exposure scorer
Rank your own
exposure. Right here.
Edit the rows below. X is how long the data must stay confidential, Y is how long migrating that surface takes, and Z is the horizon you plan against. When X plus Y exceeds Z, anything copied today is still worth reading when the capability arrives, which is the whole of the store-now-break-later problem.
This runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you type is sent anywhere, stored, or seen by us. There is no account and no request to the network, which is deliberate: an institution should not have to hand its cryptographic inventory to a stranger to find out whether it has a problem. Close the tab and it is gone.
The horizon you plan against
Z is a choice, not a fact. The Global Risk Institute's 2025 expert survey puts a cryptographically relevant quantum computer at 28 to 49% within ten years and 51 to 70% within fifteen. Ten years is the near edge of that, which is why it is the default here. Drag the slider and watch the ranking move: that sensitivity is the most useful thing on this page, and it is the reason a single confident date is worth less than a band.
Your inventory
| Asset | Primitive | X (yr) | Y (yr) | X+Y | Tier | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X plus Y exceeds Z by 24 years. Anything copied today is still valuable when the capability is expected to exist. | 34 | CRITICAL | ||||
Symmetric. The known quantum speedup is quadratic, so this key size keeps a large margin. Not a migration target. | 31 | SAFE | ||||
X plus Y exceeds Z by 10 years. Anything copied today is still valuable when the capability is expected to exist. | 20 | CRITICAL | ||||
Inside Z by 1 year. A slower migration or a longer retention would flip this. | 9 | MONITOR | ||||
Comfortably inside the horizon on the values given. | 4 | SAFE |
What this does not do
A ranking is not an assessment.
It cannot see your estate
You typed these rows. Nothing here discovers an asset you forgot, and the surface nobody remembers is usually the one that matters. A real inventory is built by looking, not by recalling.
The tiers are mechanical
This applies arithmetic to the numbers you gave it. The sample deliverable tiers some rows differently, because an analyst weighed things the arithmetic cannot see, such as a retention floor set by law or a counterparty who controls half your schedule. Where the two disagree, the deliverable says why.
Nothing here is evidence
This page produces a ranking on your screen and no record of any kind. It is not signed, not dated, and not something a supervisor would accept. That is the part that has to be produced rather than computed.
You just ranked it.
Now see it done properly.
The sample deliverable runs this same scoring across a full inventory, adds the advisory cross-reference and the roadmap, and ships with a signed evidence file.