Summary
As computer systems prepare for future quantum computers, which can break current encryption methods, new quantum-resistant crypto algorithms are being tested. The authors studied how these new cryptographic methods perform on small ARM devices when run normally, inside Docker containers, or in lightweight virtual machines called unikernels. They found that running in containers usually adds little delay, while unikernel overhead varies by algorithm. For simple cryptographic operations, the way the software is run matters more, but for complex post-quantum algorithms, the choice of algorithm itself is the main factor affecting speed and energy use.
What this means in practice
- •For embedded system developers: Optimize cryptographic performance on embedded devices by selecting suitable virtualization environments and post-quantum algorithms based on this paper's benchmarks.
- •For network security engineers: Design energy-efficient TLS 1.3 handshakes for secure communications on resource-constrained devices using the performance insights on post-quantum cryptography in different virtualized setups.
Abstract
Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) is being deployed while embedded systems increasingly adopt lightweight virtualization for workload isolation and security. Both trends change performance characteristics, yet their interaction is not well understood. To address this, we present a measurement study of PQC primitives on embedded-class ARM hardware under three execution environments with a shared software stack: native execution, a Docker container, and a Unikraft unikernel running under QEMU. We benchmark five signature and five key encapsulation mechanism families, and, for comparison, two classical algorithms each. We evaluate them using different parameter sets for a total of around 70 configurations, measuring execution time, memory, and energy per operation. To better gauge the impact on applications, we evaluated TLS 1.3 cipher combinations. We find that container overhead is negligible for primitive computation, whereas unikernel overhead depends on the algorithm. For most PQC families the overhead is negligible. A moderate overhead (1.28-1.53) arises in BIKE, HQC, and MAYO, and, above all, in Falcon signing (17.8-19.2). Per-operation energy closely tracks execution time in all environments. For TLS handshakes, container and unikernel clients need more time and energy per handshake, while all three environments converge once expensive post-quantum algorithms dominate the handshake. In these cases algorithm choice affects per-handshake energy by up to three orders of magnitude, far outweighing the environment. Overall, virtualization cost is inversely related to cryptographic cost: environment choice matters most for computationally cheap, standardized algorithms, while for expensive schemes, algorithm choice alone dominates performance.