Dr. Pravir Malik is the founder and technologist of QIQuantum and the Forbes Technology Council Community leader for Quantum Computing.
Bruce Schneier’s enduring warning that “security is a process, not a product” remains right. But the next security stack must go further. It must make trust a property of architecture: what can be known, what can be exported, who may decide and what evidence must exist before action occurs.
Three pressures make that urgent.
The first is quantum risk. NIST finalized its first post-quantum cryptography (PQC) standards in 2024 and urges organizations to begin migrating now. The concern extends beyond when a cryptographically relevant quantum computer arrives. Migration can take years to complete, while adversaries can collect encrypted data today for “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks.
The second is agentic AI. Agents can interpret goals, invoke tools and initiate transactions or configuration changes at machine speed. NIST’s 2026 AI Agent Standards Initiative reflects the need for agents to act securely on behalf of users. Yet authentication alone does not establish authority. A valid agent using a valid credential can still exceed its purpose, scope, approval boundary or time window.
The third is evidentiary. Organizations often respond to uncertainty by exporting more logs, traces and attestation data. That may improve visibility, but repeated high-resolution evidence can also become a reconstruction channel. A compromised component may even help manufacture the narrative used to certify it.
What Market Leaders Are Already Signaling
Leading companies are addressing different parts of this problem.
Cloudflare reported in October 2025 that more than half of human-initiated traffic on its network was protected against harvest now, decrypt later attacks through post-quantum encryption. That demonstrates how quantum-safe migration can move from standards into Internet-scale infrastructure.
Microsoft’s Pluton security processor shows another direction. Integrating a secure cryptographic subsystem into the system-on-chip brings the hardware root of trust closer to the processor, reducing exposure from communication with a separate security component.
Agentic security is producing a third response. Microsoft Entra Agent ID gives AI agents purpose-built identities, governance and adaptive access controls. Okta similarly treats agents as first-class identities, using short-lived credentials, least-privilege policies and runtime control over tool connections.
These are serious advances. Together, they point toward quantum-resistant cryptography, stronger hardware anchors and disciplined agent authorization. But a missing layer remains: a common trust constitution connecting the physical root, the evidence surface and the authority to act.
The Missing Category Of Trust
Many security systems begin with something readable in principle: a private key, credential, device measurement or protected state. Hardware can make extraction extremely difficult, and cryptography can constrain misuse. Yet if the root becomes a transcript, it can potentially be copied, replayed or modeled.
In my Springer book, Pioneering Engineered Security in the Quantum-Cyber Era, I propose a different category of trust. The root would itself be a quantum object: a non-exportable physical imprint or relationship governed from the outset by quantum no-go laws. Hardware would embody this root, while its observable face would remain governed and deliberately incomplete. External systems would receive bounded receipts about health, freshness, lineage and continuing congruence rather than raw state or increasingly revealing diagnostics.
An independent witness would test continuity without sharing the actor’s narrative machinery. High-consequence action would require the complete evidence envelope to support it. This is a research and engineering trajectory, not a claim that a production-ready quantum trust chip already exists. Its importance lies in defining what such hardware must make structurally true.
Turning Quantum Limits Into Interface Laws
The no-cloning theorem establishes that an arbitrary unknown quantum state cannot be perfectly copied. The no-broadcasting theorem extends this restriction to noncommuting mixed states.
These laws do not automatically make a device secure. Their value is that they can be translated into interface requirements. A trust root should have no universal readout path. Evidence should strengthen confidence without accumulating into tomography: a reconstruction of protected state. A counterfeit or tampered object should fail under fresh challenges because it cannot preserve the lawful relationship between protected interior and governed surface. The actor should not be its own sole witness.
The goal is not to hide a conventional secret more effectively. It is to arrange hardware and interfaces so that trust cannot naturally collapse into exportable data.
The Agentic Test: Can A Valid Actor Propose An Invalid Action?
Agentic AI provides the clearest test of this architecture. The model may propose an action, but an enforcement plane outside the probabilistic model should decide whether that action is admissible now.
That decision should examine identity, credentials, declared purpose, target scope, current policy, approval boundaries, lifecycle state and independent evidence. Only a signed decision receipt bound to the approved action should release execution.
This builds on Zero Trust, which distinguishes authentication from authorization, by binding authority to the specific action and its current evidence. A valid identity must never substitute for valid authority.
Rebuilding The Stack From The Root Up
PQC, hardware security processors, agent identity, least privilege and Zero Trust remain essential. But they address different parts of the problem. Individually, they cannot guarantee that a trust root never becomes a transcript, repeated verification never becomes a learning channel or a valid agent never exceeds its authority.
A deeper redesign would connect three principles: authority anchored in non-exportable physical structure; evidence limited to bounded, independently verifiable proofs; and high-consequence action released only when identity, purpose, policy, lifecycle continuity and current evidence align.
Designing this architecture cannot wait for mature hardware. Quantum migration is underway, encrypted information can be collected today and agentic systems are moving from recommendation toward action. The quantum transition therefore reaches beyond replacing RSA or elliptic-curve cryptography. It requires us to reconsider what creates authority, what counts as evidence and what must be proven before machines may act.
What we need now is a new category of trust on which the security stack can be rebuilt.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?