Post-quantum cryptography migration starts with what’s running.

The decision gap // 01

Static inventory tells you what might exist. Migration decisions need to know what is active.

Dependencies, certificates, and configuration remain useful inputs, but they do not prove which crypto executes in a workload, who owns it, or whether it matters for the migration path.

BLIND SPOT 01

Hidden runtime use

Dynamic libraries, vendor binaries, and actual protocol behavior can differ from the static picture.

BLIND SPOT 02

No decision context

Without workload, owner, coverage, and network context, a crypto list does not tell a team what to change first.

BLIND SPOT 03

Migration is delayed

Legacy systems and vendor dependencies can make immediate application remediation slow, risky, or unavailable.

what Laviq captured
Laviq Raw Evidence console view showing observed crypto events, selected event details, crypto measurements, and runtime call stack.
Real Laviq console screenshot · captured runtime crypto evidence with process and call-stack context.

The value

A migration decision backed by runtime evidence, not assumptions.

Laviq gives your team a reviewable view of the workload, the cryptography it used, and the limits of what was observed—so the next decision starts from proof.

  • Evidence you can inspect: captured activity with the context behind it.
  • Priorities you can explain: findings connected to workloads and owners.
  • Limits kept visible: coverage and evidence gaps remain part of the review.

See how Laviq works →

Where to start // 02

Built for the decisions between discovery and migration.

Start with the workload where uncertainty, delay, or a wrong decision would be expensive.

Choose the question

Start with the workload your team needs to explain.

Choose a critical service, a vendor-controlled component, or a path with material long-term exposure.

Prioritize a PQC migration review

Start from active findings, coverage, ownership, and workload context rather than a dependency list that may not represent runtime use.

Investigate vendor or legacy software

Use observed runtime evidence when source access is partial, unavailable, or insufficient for the question.

Prepare a security or architecture review

Bring an evidence-backed view of active behavior, open coverage gaps, owners, and next actions into the migration discussion.

Next step

Turn one migration question into a focused assessment.

Tell us about the Linux workload, vendor dependency, or migration decision you need to resolve. We will help define the right starting point.

Request console access ↗