A Module-LWE driven post-quantum security model for 6G networks using discrete mathematical cryptography
Arun Kumararun.k@smit.smu.edu.inDepartment of Electronics and Communication EngineeringSikkim Manipal Institute of TechnologySikkim Manipal UniversityMajitar, Sikkim, 737136, IndiaView full profile → , Venkatachalam Revathirevshank153@gmail.comDepartment of Applied SciencesNew Horizon College of EngineeringBengaluru, Karnataka, 560103, IndiaView full profile → , Jayanta Kumar Baruahjayanta.b@smit.smu.edu.inDepartment of Electronics and Communication EngineeringSikkim Manipal Institute of TechnologySikkim Manipal UniversityMajitar, Sikkim, 737136, IndiaView full profile → , Prashanta Chandra Pradhanprashant.p@smit.smu.edu.inDepartment of Electronics and Communication EngineeringSikkim Manipal Institute of TechnologySikkim Manipal UniversityMajitar, Sikkim, 737136, IndiaView full profile → , *Aziz NanthaamornphongCorresponding authoraziz.n@phuket.psu.ac.thCollege of ComputingPrince of Songkla UniversityKathu 83120, Phuket, ThailandView full profile →
* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details
- Received:
- 01 Dec 2025
- Published Online:
- 14 Aug 2026
- Article type:
- Research Article
- Language:
- EN
- Article no.:
- JDMSC-2691
- Pages:
- 3065–3073
Abstract
The advent of 6G communication introduces extreme performance requirements, including sub-millisecond latency, high reliability, and massive connectivity. These demands, combined with the threat posed by quantum computers, render classical cryptographic schemes such as RSA-2048 and ECC-P256 insecure. This paper presents a lattice-based post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) framework designed to secure 6G networks against quantum attacks. The proposed approach employs Module-LWE–based key encapsulation mechanisms and digital signatures. Numerical analysis demonstrates that the proposed lattice-KEM requires approximately 1184 bytes of public key and 1088 bytes of ciphertext, compared to 256 bytes for RSA-2048 and 64 bytes for ECC-P256. Computation time for lattice operations is measured at 148 ms, while RSA and ECC require 63 ms and 1.6 ms, respectively. Simulation results further show that at a 50-kbps control-channel rate, lattice-based key establishment incurs ~320 ms latency, whereas RSA and ECC require 102 ms and 11 ms. Despite higher communication overhead, the proposed method achieves 256-bit quantum security, outperforming classical systems vulnerable to quantum attacks. These findings confirm the suitability of lattice-based PQC as a robust and future-proof security solution for 6G networks.
Keywords
Subject Classifications
References
[1] D. Goyal, A. Kumar, P. Mathur, F. Sheth, and A. K. Gupta, “Robust cybersecurity through discrete and large language models for effective phishing attack detection,” J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr., vol. 28, no. 5-A, pp. 1621–1638 (2025), doi: 10.47974/JDMSC-2162.
[2] D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci., vol. 400, pp. 97–117 (1985).
[3] D. Micciancio and O. Regev, “Lattice-based cryptography,” in Post-Quantum Cryptography, Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 147–191 (2009).
[4] P. Kumar, K. Banerjee, N. Singhal, A. Kumar, S. Rani, R. Kumar, and C. A. Lavinia, “Verifiable, secure mobile agent migration in healthcare systems using a polynomial-based threshold secret sharing scheme with a Blowfish algorithm,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 21, Art. no. 8620 (2022), doi: 10.3390/s22218620.
[5] B. Rajabi and Z. Eslami, “A verifiable threshold secret sharing scheme based on lattices,” Inf. Sci., vol. 501, pp. 655–661 (2019).
[6] M. K. Sharma and A. Kumar, “NOMA waveform technique using orthogonal supplementary signal for advanced 5G networks security,” J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1125–1136 (2022).
[7] A. Noonia, D. Thakral, P. Mathur, F. Sheth, H. Shaikh, and A. K. Gupta, “A discrete mathematical model and cryptography for secure medical image analysis: Encrypted chest X-ray classification,” J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr., vol. 28, no. 5-A, pp. 1473–1486 (2025), doi: 10.47974/JDMSC-2146.
[8] V. Lyubashevsky, C. Peikert, and O. Regev, “On ideal lattices and learning with errors over rings,” in Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6110, Berlin, Germany: Springer (2010), doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13190-5_1.
[9] N. Shirisha, H. M. Manoj, S. J. Hussain, R. Kotoju, R. Kolikipogu, and A. Mohan, “Post-quantum security framework for resource-constrained systems: Emerging trends, challenges, sustainability, and future directions,” Discover Computing, vol. 29, no. 1, Art. no. 85 (2026), doi: 10.1007/s10791-026-09982-2.
[10] M. E. Bizri, A. M. El-Hajj, L. Sliman, and A. M. Haidar, “Institutional approaches to post-quantum cryptography: A comparative analysis of migration frameworks,” IEEE Access, vol. 14, pp. 3259–3283 (2026), doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3650465.
[11] W. Abdallah, “A physical layer security scheme for 6G wireless networks using post-quantum cryptography,” Comput. Commun., vol. 218, pp. 176–187 (2024), doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2024.02.019.
