Table of Contents
A growing number of tools – from large vendors to niche startups and open-source projects – help organizations discover and inventory their cryptographic usage. These solutions differ in discovery techniques (e.g. static code analysis, passive network sniffing, agent-based host scanning, etc.), but all aim to map out where and how cryptography is implemented. For more about how to perform a comprehensive cryptographic inventory and what are the different discovery approaches, see: “How to Perform a Comprehensive Quantum Readiness Cryptographic Inventory.”
Below is a list of sample cryptographic inventory tools, each with their primary approach, strengths, limitations, and ideal use cases. By understanding what each offers, organizations can assemble a complementary toolkit to achieve a comprehensive cryptography inventory.
IBM’s Cryptographic Inventory Ecosystem and Approach
Approach
IBM takes a comprehensive approach to cryptographic inventory, combining multiple tools around a “Cryptography Bill of Materials” (CBOM) concept. IBM Quantum Safe Explorer (QSE) performs static analysis of software (scanning source and object code) to locate cryptographic assets, dependencies, and vulnerabilities. This yields a detailed cryptography inventory – a CBOM that enumerates algorithms, keys, libraries, and where they’re used, consolidating potential crypto risks in one place. Complementing this, IBM Quantum Safe Advisor builds a dynamic operational view of cryptography in use, monitoring runtime elements like TLS cipher suites, certificates, and key usage across the IT landscape. Advisor enriches the inventory with context (asset criticality, compliance status) to pinpoint where vulnerable or soon-to-be deprecated algorithms (e.g. legacy RSA or ECC) are deployed and which systems should be prioritized for updates. Finally, IBM’s process guides remediation: IBM Quantum Safe Remediator lets teams deploy and test quantum-safe replacement patterns (including hybrid encryption schemes or proxy gateways that add post-quantum encryption around legacy applications). This phased Discover–Assess–Remediate approach is coupled with industry standards – IBM contributed the CBOM model to the CycloneDX 1.6 SBOM specification and open-sourced a CBOM toolkit (“CBOMkit”) via the Linux Foundation to encourage widespread adoption of cryptography inventories.
Strengths
IBM’s solution offers broad visibility and a risk-focused lens. QSE covers a wide range of programming languages and even scans compiled binaries, allowing organizations to inventory cryptography across diverse applications and third-party components. It performs deep static analysis to flag weak or risky implementations (surfacing “quantum-vulnerable” algorithms, hard-coded keys, or improper crypto usage). Meanwhile, QSA provides enterprise-wide oversight – it aggregates cryptographic data from applications and infrastructure, linking each crypto instance to business context and policy compliance. The result is a risk-ranked inventory highlighting which cryptographic assets pose the greatest threat or non-compliance, so an organization can focus remediation where it matters most. All inventory data is output in a standardized CBOM format (aligned with CycloneDX), making it easy to share across teams and integrate with existing security and software supply chain tools. Furthermore, IBM’s Remediator tool provides proven mitigation patterns – including the ability to introduce quantum-safe encryption via proxies without rewriting legacy code – which accelerates the upgrade process with minimal disruption. This end-to-end suite (inventory, analysis, and guided remediation) enables a faster and more organized transition to post-quantum cryptography.
Limitations
As a relatively new framework, IBM’s cryptographic inventory toolkit does come with some challenges. The static scanner (QSE) is limited to the languages and libraries it supports, so any cryptography implemented in unsupported frameworks or custom code could be overlooked. It also won’t catch cryptographic usage that only appears at runtime – for example, if an algorithm choice is loaded from a configuration file or a device setting, pure static analysis may miss it, necessitating the dynamic monitoring provided by Advisor to fill the gap. Ensuring complete coverage therefore requires effort: organizations need to scan all relevant applications and environments and feed those results into the Advisor’s dashboard. In practice, deploying IBM’s tools at enterprise scale may require significant expertise and tuning. Crypto inventorying across thousands of systems is complex, and the IBM tools may demand considerable compute resources for deep scanning (IBM recommends robust hardware, e.g. high memory, for large codebases). Finally, while the suite pinpoints issues and suggests patterns, it doesn’t automate the actual fix – teams must still implement the new algorithms or proxy configurations. In other words, IBM’s approach streamlines and prioritizes the work, but skilled personnel are needed to carry out cryptographic replacements or integrations (especially for legacy systems that might not be easily upgradable without architectural changes).
Use Cases
IBM’s cryptographic inventory ecosystem is well-suited for large enterprises and government agencies facing broad post-quantum cryptography mandates. It shines in organizations with huge application portfolios and complex supply chains, where discovering all instances of vulnerable cryptography would otherwise be like searching for needles in a haystack. For example, financial institutions and tech companies have used the CBOM approach to quickly identify occurrences of algorithms like RSA-2048 or SHA-1 across hundreds of applications, then plan upgrades in a phased, risk-driven manner. The IBM solution is also timely for the public sector: U.S. federal directives now require agencies to inventory and replace quantum-vulnerable cryptography within aggressive timelines, a process that IBM’s tools can jump-start by producing an actionable inventory and compliance view. In scenarios where thousands of cryptographic components are in play, IBM’s risk scoring and “crypto posture” analysis help prioritize the most critical or exposed systems (for instance, public-facing services protecting sensitive data) to be remediated first. Overall, IBM’s inventory and CBOM-based methodology is an excellent fit when an organization must rapidly assess its cryptographic exposure at scale and methodically guide a transition to quantum-safe alternatives.
Keyfactor Crypto-Agility (InfoSec Global AgileSec)
Approach
InfoSec Global’s AgileSec Analytics, now part of Keyfactor’s platform (Keyfactor acquired InfoSec Global in 2025), exemplifies an agent-based, host-centric discovery method. It deploys lightweight sensors on endpoints (or leverages existing agents like Tanium or CrowdStrike) to scan systems for cryptographic artifacts. This includes searching file systems, registries, and memory for keys and certificates, identifying cryptographic libraries and their versions, and inspecting configurations and API calls on each machine. The platform aggregates findings into a central inventory database and dashboard. It also correlates discovered items with their usage (e.g. linking a certificate file to the service using it) to provide context. In addition, it can ingest data from network detection and cloud platforms to enrich the inventory. Since the Keyfactor acquisition, these discovery capabilities (including a network traffic sensor from the CipherInsights tool) are being integrated with Keyfactor’s certificate management and policy engines.
Strengths
By using endpoint visibility, this approach can uncover “known and hidden” crypto assets on each host – from TLS certificates and SSH keys to software libraries and config files. It provides deep visibility into how cryptography is actually implemented on servers and applications, which is great for finding outdated algorithms (e.g. an old OpenSSL library or a 1024-bit RSA key in a keystore). The integration with existing EDR tools makes deployment easier – for organizations already running CrowdStrike or Tanium, AgileSec can piggyback on those agents. Results are consolidated into a “single source of truth” dashboard with rich reporting and risk scoring, including compliance checks against standards like NIST and PCI-DSS. The tool can continuously monitor the environment and even enforce policies (for example, alerting or blocking if a disallowed cipher is used). NIST’s NCCoE has validated this technology as part of its PQC migration initiative, lending credibility.
Limitations
Endpoint scanning requires installing sensors or using existing agents, which may not be feasible on every device. Legacy systems, OT devices, or appliances that can’t support an agent could be blind spots. The solution’s strength is in IT environments (servers, VMs, user endpoints); purely network devices or deeply embedded IoT might not be directly scanned (those might rely on importing data from other tools). Also, while it finds cryptographic items on a host, it might not automatically reveal how they’re used in custom application code – you may still need code analysis for that. In highly locked-down environments, deploying new scanning jobs via EDR needs to be carefully tested to avoid performance impacts.
Use Cases
This host-based approach is ideal for enterprise IT environments that need a comprehensive inventory across a large fleet of systems. For example, a bank can use it to enumerate all certificates and TLS configurations on thousands of servers and ensure none are using weak ciphers. It’s also effective for cloud and hybrid infrastructure – InfoSec Global’s sensors can scan cloud VMs and even container images for crypto libraries. Organizations preparing for long-term crypto-agility (e.g. updating algorithms before they expire) benefit from the detailed insight into each system’s crypto posture. In contrast, for OT networks or devices that can’t tolerate agents, this tool would be used only on supporting IT systems (e.g. the Windows servers in a factory network) or not at all on the controllers, in which case a network-based tool would complement it.
SandboxAQ AQtive Guard
Approach
SandboxAQ (an Alphabet spin-off, which also acquired Cryptosense) offers AQtive Guard, a multi-method “360° cryptography inventory” platform. It uniquely combines three discovery modalities: a passive Network Analyzer that captures live network traffic to identify the protocols and ciphers protecting data in transit, an Application Analyzer that hooks into running processes to log all calls to crypto libraries (instrumenting applications at runtime), and a Filesystem Analyzer that scans at-rest files and binaries for cryptographic material. By correlating these data sources, AQtive Guard can map, for example, that a certain deprecated TLS 1.0 cipher observed on the network was coming from a specific application and library, and that the certificate and key for it reside on a particular server file system. The platform provides a unified dashboard with this cross-layer view and offers policy checks (flagging uses of non-compliant algorithms) and even crypto performance metrics.
Strengths
The comprehensiveness of this approach is its greatest strength – it covers cryptography in code, on disk, and on the wire. This means it can catch things other single-method tools might miss. For instance, the runtime analyzer can detect if an application dynamically generates an RSA key or calls a legacy cipher, even if those calls wouldn’t be obvious in static code. The network sensor gives real-time assurance that no banned protocols (like SSLv3 or weak ciphers) are being used in any communication. The correlated inventory provides high-quality insights: AQtive Guard not only lists what crypto is present, but links related components across environment layers. Policy enforcement is another plus – the system can highlight violations of FIPS-140, PCI-DSS, or internal crypto policies in both network and application contexts. Users also cite the integration capabilities (hooking into issue trackers, CMDBs, and certificate managers) to streamline remediation. SandboxAQ reports that major organizations (the U.S. Air Force, Department of Health & Human Services, global banks) have successfully deployed AQtive Guard, demonstrating its scalability.
Limitations
The deployment complexity is higher due to the multi-pronged approach. Instrumenting applications with the runtime Application Analyzer can introduce overhead or instability if not carefully managed – in extremely sensitive production environments, this kind of hooking may be discouraged. Organizations might opt to use that component only in test environments or on select apps. The Network Analyzer, being passive, is generally safe, but it needs access to network taps or SPAN ports which can be an infrastructure challenge. Also, fully leveraging AQtive Guard means handling a large volume of data from three sources, so mature data analysis capabilities are needed (SandboxAQ’s tooling mitigates this with its dashboards and analytics). For OT or real-time systems, injecting hooks is usually off-limits, so those environments might only benefit from the passive network part of AQtive Guard. Another consideration is that this is a premium solution – best suited for organizations willing to invest in a comprehensive platform.
Use Cases
AQtive Guard is ideal for large enterprises and government agencies that need the most complete cryptographic visibility. It’s especially useful in environments where cryptography is pervasive and heterogeneous (multiple programming languages, a mix of on-prem and cloud, etc.) – the tool’s breadth can inventory an entire enterprise’s crypto usage from mainframes to microservices. For a greenfield deployment, an organization might deploy all three analyzers from the start to build a robust cryptography observability practice. In mature environments, AQtive Guard often serves as an audit and compliance tool: e.g. a government agency can use it to verify that no internal systems use algorithms disallowed by policy (the network sensor catches policy violations on the wire, while the application sensor catches them in custom software). In OT or IoT scenarios, organizations typically use the Network Analyzer to monitor industrial protocol encryption without touching the devices, pairing it with a more targeted tool for device firmware if needed.
CryptoNext COMPASS (Passive Network & Analytics Suite)
Approach
CryptoNext Security (a Paris-based post-quantum startup) offers COMPASS, which includes a specialized passive network probe and an analytics platform. The COMPASS Passive Probe is a high-performance sniffer that sits on network taps/SPAN ports to identify all cryptographic data in transit in real time. It parses over 100 IT and OT protocols automatically, extracting information like the algorithms, key lengths, and certificate details used in each session. Notably, it is completely passive – it does not perform handshakes or inject any traffic – making it safe for sensitive environments. The probe sends its findings to the COMPASS Analytics platform, which correlates data from other sources as well (it can integrate with endpoint data, certificate management systems, and even source code scanners via open APIs). The Analytics dashboard provides an aggregated cryptography inventory and risk analysis, allowing users to filter by weak algorithms, expiring certificates, etc. All data is stored in a unified repository that uses the CBOM (Cryptographic BOM) format for each asset, ensuring standardization.
Strengths
Being completely passive, the COMPASS network probe is ideal for environments where active scanning or new software on endpoints is not acceptable. It can monitor continuously with no impact on network performance (the probe is read-only on a TAP) and without risking fragile systems. It provides broad protocol coverage – detecting cryptography in common enterprise protocols (HTTPS, SSH, VPN, etc.) as well as industry-specific ones (industrial control system protocols, IoT communication, etc.). This means it can uncover, for example, an outdated cipher on a SCADA system or an unencrypted database connection. The focus on cryptographic details means it reports only relevant info (e.g. it will flag just the cryptographic weakness rather than all network flows) to reduce noise. Deployment is straightforward: drop the probe on a network segment and it starts listening. It’s also scalable – you can start with one probe (capable of real-time analysis up to ~1 Gbps today) and add more or use higher-throughput versions as needed. All findings can be exported in standard formats (like the CBOM) or consumed via APIs, so it integrates well if you have a central inventory system.
Limitations
As a network-only tool, COMPASS sees only cryptography in transit. If an application uses encryption internally (say, encrypting a file on disk, or using a library but not sending data over network), the probe won’t catch it. It also cannot decrypt content (unless provided keys in special cases), so it relies on handshake metadata; if proprietary encryption or obfuscation is used, it might not identify that without protocol support. While 1 Gbps real-time analysis is sufficient for many segments, very high traffic networks might require multiple probes or sampling (the roadmap indicates support for 10 Gbps in the future). Also, the probe needs access to network traffic at key choke points – in highly distributed networks or cloud environments, getting a full picture might mean deploying multiple sensors. The analytics platform, being a central point, requires proper integration of various data sources to realize its full value (it’s an open platform approach, which is flexible but also demands some integration effort to include endpoint or code data if desired).
Use Cases
COMPASS is excellent for OT and IoT environments, such as manufacturing plants, utilities, or healthcare devices, where devices often cannot be actively scanned. A passive probe can reveal, for instance, that a PLC (programmable logic controller) is using an outdated encryption scheme on its communications without touching the PLC. It’s also useful as a continuous network compliance monitor in IT networks – e.g. a company can deploy it at the enterprise ingress/egress to ensure no external TLS connections are using disallowed ciphers or to find internal services still using self-signed or expired certificates. Many organizations use COMPASS as an initial mapping tool: by sniffing traffic for a period, they quickly compile a list of protocols and algorithms in use, which then guides deeper investigation. In a greenfield PQC readiness project, a network inventory via COMPASS can identify immediate weak points (like legacy VPNs or deprecated TLS) that need upgrading, especially before rolling out more intrusive scans. Overall, any scenario that requires insight into cryptography in use on the wire – including catching misconfigurations like “encryption off” on a database connection – is a good fit for CryptoNext’s passive probe approach.
Quantum Xchange CipherInsights
Approach
CipherInsights from Quantum Xchange (recently acquired by Keyfactor) is another network-centric cryptography discovery tool. It acts as a passive listener on the network, continuously monitoring traffic for cryptographic “risk factors”. The tool inspects handshake and protocol data from flows (including outbound traffic to external hosts) to detect things like: use of quantum-vulnerable algorithms (RSA/ECC in key exchanges, older ciphers), plaintext communications where encryption should be present, weak cipher suites, expired or untrusted certificates, etc. CipherInsights essentially gives a real-time report of where encryption is sufficient, weak, or missing altogether across the enterprise. It was recognized by NIST’s NCCoE as a recommended discovery tool for PQC migration efforts. The latest versions introduced a dashboard that tracks an organization’s progress toward quantum-safe cryptography, highlighting which systems are already using quantum-safe algorithms, which are not, and what is currently at risk by conventional standards. It also can output an inventory in CBOM format and integrates via APIs into SIEMs, CMDBs, and SOAR platforms for operationalization.
Strengths
CipherInsights is valued for its real-time continuous monitoring of cryptographic posture. Because it scans all traffic it sees (including outbound to the internet), it can catch shadow IT or unexpected crypto usage – for example, if an internal app suddenly starts calling an external API with an insecure protocol, CipherInsights would flag it. Its focus on “dozens of cryptographic risk factors” means it provides actionable findings, not just raw data. For instance, it can tell you not just that TLS 1.2 is in use, but perhaps that a particular session negotiated an RSA-1024 key exchange – a clear risk indicator. Zero network impact (fully passive) and the ability to drop in without altering infrastructure are also major strengths, similar to other passive probes. The compliance and PQC readiness features (like the quantum-safe progress dashboard) make it a great management tool: leadership can get a quick visual of “how much of our encryption is quantum-safe vs legacy”. Additionally, by providing foresight into which systems will have issues when introducing PQC (it can simulate or predict if a system would fail a PQC handshake), it helps plan migrations in a way that avoids surprises.
Limitations
As with any network-only solution, CipherInsights doesn’t directly tell you where in a system an algorithm is implemented – it might flag a weak cipher on port 443 of a server, but you’ll need to investigate the server to fix it (though the integration with Keyfactor’s platform aims to tie this together). It also requires placement in the network to see the traffic of interest: encrypted traffic inside a TLS tunnel (like HTTPS inside a VPN) won’t be visible unless the probe is inside the tunnel termination point. There is also a volume consideration: high-throughput links may produce a lot of cryptographic events, so ensure the deployment can scale (the tool has been used in large government agencies, so it’s proven, but planning is needed). Post-acquisition, the standalone availability might change (Keyfactor is likely integrating it into a broader platform), but conceptually the capability remains relevant.
Use Cases
CipherInsights has been popular in government and finance, especially in response to mandates like the U.S. Cybersecurity Act and NSM-10 that require inventories of quantum-vulnerable cryptography. Agencies can deploy it to fulfill the “system-wide cryptography audit” step: it rapidly identifies any use of legacy encryption that needs addressing. In corporate settings, it’s useful for ongoing compliance – e.g. ensuring that after a migration project, no one backslides into using insecure protocols. It’s also a great incident response aid: if a new vulnerability in a TLS library is announced, CipherInsights can help pinpoint which systems are actively using that library or protocol by observing the network. In summary, whenever an organization wants a quick, low-effort snapshot of its cryptographic posture (and to continuously monitor it), a passive tool like CipherInsights is extremely handy. It provides the big-picture awareness that complements deeper host-level inventories.
PQStation QVision
Approach
PQStation (a newer vendor based in Singapore) offers QVision, an AI-driven platform for cryptographic risk assessment and inventory. QVision uses a combination of lightweight endpoint sensors and integration with existing tools to gather cryptography data across the environment. Organizations can deploy QVision’s own sensors on servers, cloud instances, and devices, or integrate QVision with their existing EDR/monitoring tools to ingest cryptographic telemetry. The platform quickly detects and catalogs cryptographic objects enterprise-wide – including SSL/TLS certificates, SSH keys, cryptographic libraries and algorithms in use, and even things like hardcoded secrets if detectable. After discovery, QVision correlates these findings to identify weaknesses: for example, it will cross-reference certificates with known expiration dates, flag too-short key lengths, and detect if the same key appears in multiple places (potential key reuse or leakage). The output is presented in dashboards and reports that highlight an organization’s quantum risk profile and compliance status. QVision also features a policy engine that continuously monitors the environment against custom cryptography policies, sending alerts or guidance when an insecure usage is found. Essentially, it not only builds a CBOM-like inventory, but actively guides the user to what needs fixing first to prepare for post-quantum threats.
Strengths
QVision’s flexible deployment is a plus – the ability to use existing security infrastructure (like hooking into your SIEM or EDR) can shorten rollout time. It covers a broad range of cryptographic elements: not just certificates and keys, but also algorithms in configurations and code, giving a holistic view of “crypto in use” across the stack. The correlation engine provides insight that raw lists wouldn’t – for example, it can tell you that a certain weak cipher is used by these five applications on those servers, and maybe all share a certain library version. This helps in planning remediation (you can update the library in one go). QVision places emphasis on post-quantum readiness; its reports can include prioritized migration plans and even suggest which systems to tackle in which order based on vulnerability and criticality. The real-time policy monitoring ensures that once you clean up your crypto, it stays clean – if someone later introduces a non-compliant algorithm, QVision will flag it immediately. For organizations in regulated industries (finance, healthcare), the compliance reporting and attestation features are very useful, translating the raw inventory into management-level metrics (e.g. “95% of our crypto is compliant with NIST PQC guidance”).
Limitations
Being a newer entrant, PQStation’s platform might not have the same breadth of integrations or track record as longer-standing vendors. Some organizations might be cautious to introduce another sensor, though PQStation’s are designed to be low-impact. Like other host-based solutions, coverage of things like network appliances or closed systems will depend on whether those can run a sensor or be queried – in some cases, you’d have to feed QVision data from external scans for those. Also, while the interface emphasizes AI and roadmaps, the effectiveness of those AI-driven recommendations is something that improves with data – a very unique or small environment might not get as much insight from “AI” until it has more data to chew on. As PQStation primarily positions itself for quantum risk, some purely traditional crypto management features (like detailed lifecycle management of keys) might not be in scope – it’s more of an assessment tool than an active crypto management system.
Use Cases
QVision is tailored for organizations starting their post-quantum cryptography (PQC) transition journey. If you need to kickstart a cryptographic inventory with an eye toward quantum threats, QVision provides a fast path: deploy sensors, get an inventory and PQC vulnerability analysis in one platform. Sectors like banking, government, and healthcare – which PQStation explicitly targets – can benefit from the compliance checking and roadmap features to satisfy regulators and auditors that they are addressing the quantum threat. It’s also a good fit for enterprises that may not have a large internal crypto team and want a more guided solution; QVision’s recommendations (e.g. “these 10 systems should be upgraded to quantum-safe TLS first”) help organizations with limited cryptography expertise take action. In a sense, QVision often serves as both the discovery tool and the consultant, generating an inventory and a suggested plan. This makes it a strong choice for mid-sized organizations that need cryptographic visibility but don’t have the resources to integrate multiple tools and manually derive a strategy.
QryptoCyber Platform (AI-Orchestrated Inventory)
Approach
QryptoCyber is a startup providing an AI-powered cryptographic inventory and management platform. Their approach is holistic, organizing discovery around what they call the “Five Pillars” of cryptography: External Network, Internal Network, IT/OT Assets, Databases, and Code. Instead of building a new scanner for each pillar, QryptoCyber’s platform orchestrates a combination of techniques and even third-party tools to cover all areas. For example, it may use external certificate scans (for pillar 1), passive network monitoring or flow analysis for pillar 2, agent-based or vulnerability management integrations for pillar 3 (assets), database configuration scanning for pillar 4, and static code analysis for pillar 5. The key idea is centralization: all findings funnel into QryptoCyber’s AI engine which categorizes and analyzes the encryption usage, producing a unified Cryptography BOM (CBOM) and a risk mitigation roadmap. The AI is used to prioritize which crypto vulnerabilities are most critical and to suggest remediation steps and sequencing (effectively turning the inventory into an actionable strategy). The platform emphasizes quick turnaround – their marketing suggests they deliver a full inventory and PQC plan in weeks, not months – by leveraging automation and any data sources you already have.
Strengths
QryptoCyber’s breadth of coverage stands out. By ensuring all “five pillars” are addressed, it avoids the blind spots that a single-method tool might have. This means an organization won’t forget, say, their database encryption or their CI/CD pipeline crypto usages, which are often overlooked. The platform’s flexibility is another plus: it’s described as “your agent or ours,” meaning it can deploy its own collectors or use data from existing tools (APIs, logs, etc.). This reduces duplication of effort and tool fatigue. The AI-driven analysis can be very useful for decision-makers – instead of a dump of issues, you get a coherent story: e.g. “Out of 1000 crypto assets, 50 are high-risk (weak algorithms protecting sensitive data) – focusing on these yields 80% risk reduction” (an example of the kind of insight leadership wants). QryptoCyber effectively productizes the consulting process of crypto inventory -> risk assessment -> mitigation plan. They also output results in standard CBOM format and provide a dashboard with PQC readiness scores, making it easy to track progress and communicate status to stakeholders.
Limitations
Because QryptoCyber leverages multiple underlying tools, the accuracy and depth of the inventory rely on those integrations. If an environment lacks any existing scanning (e.g. no static code analysis tools, no network sensors), QryptoCyber would deploy its own, but those might not be as mature as dedicated solutions from specialized vendors. In other words, it’s a bit of a jack-of-all-trades; extremely complex environments might still need deeper dives with specialized tools (which QryptoCyber can incorporate, but the organization would need to have them or work with QryptoCyber to set them up). Since it’s a newer company, some features may still be evolving (for instance, full automation of database scanning or special OT protocols might require case-by-case support). Also, the “AI” recommendations are only as good as the data – a company with very unique cryptographic use cases might find that human experts still need to validate the plan. Finally, organizations with strict data policies might need to scrutinize what data the platform’s AI is using (e.g. does sensitive key material ever leave your premises? Usually not, but one must ensure any cloud components are configured appropriately).
Use Cases
QryptoCyber is well-suited for enterprises embarking on quantum readiness as a structured program, especially if they want an end-to-end packaged solution. For example, a large retail company with little internal cryptography expertise might use QryptoCyber to rapidly map out all cryptography (from public websites to internal databases to application code) and get a clear list of what to fix and in what order. It’s also useful for CISOs reporting to boards – the platform’s outputs (like a PQC risk score and roadmap) are management-friendly, which can justify budget and resources for the cryptographic modernization program. In sectors such as critical infrastructure or utilities, where a mix of IT and OT exists, the five-pillar approach ensures that both the corporate IT network and the industrial control network are assessed (few tools attempt this full scope). Also, for compliance such as PCI DSS 4.0 (which now explicitly includes crypto inventory requirements), QryptoCyber’s comprehensive audit can help demonstrate that all areas (external, internal, etc.) have been checked. Overall, it’s a strong choice when an organization wants to accelerate the inventory and planning phase by outsourcing a lot of the heavy lifting to an automated platform.
ISARA Advance (Cryptographic Inventory & Risk Manager)
Approach
ISARA (a Canadian PQC company) offers Advance, a cryptographic inventory and risk assessment tool. Advance is designed as a management platform that aggregates data from your environment to reveal cryptographic “blind spots” and weaknesses. Notably, Advance uses an agentless architecture: instead of installing its own scanners everywhere, it integrates with existing network and endpoint tools (NDRs and EDRs) to ingest the data those are already collecting. For example, if you have a network detection system that logs TLS handshakes and an endpoint security platform that inventories certificates, Advance will pull in that information and combine it. It builds inventories of cryptography protecting data in motion (like network connections, VPNs, etc.) and presumably data at rest (e.g. file encryption, keys on disk), although ISARA’s material emphasizes the data-in-motion and PKI side heavily. Advance’s dashboard then presents an organized view of all identified cryptographic assets, categorized by type (certificates, algorithms, libraries, etc.) and highlights any that are “bad usage” – meaning vulnerable algorithms, misconfigurations, or non-compliance. The platform also provides risk scoring and can output reports for audits and regulatory compliance. Essentially, ISARA Advance acts as a central cryptography posture manager, leveraging what you already have deployed.
Strengths
The agentless design is a big advantage for ease of deployment. If an organization has, say, CrowdStrike on endpoints and a Splunk logging for network data, Advance can be up and running quickly by tapping into those feeds rather than deploying yet another scanner. This reduces deployment risk and avoids putting any load on sensitive systems. ISARA being a PQC-focused firm means Advance is geared to find quantum-vulnerable instances and help prioritize them. It explicitly helps inventory the full range of cryptographic algorithms (encryption, digital signature, key exchange, hashing) that the enterprise depends on. The platform surfaces cryptographic risks clearly – e.g. it will list out “old algorithms” or “misused configurations” so you can immediately see if you have an RSA-1024 key or an MD5 certificate somewhere. It also helps with compliance: you can check your inventory against internal crypto policies or standards, and Advance will show which systems are out of compliance (for instance, a server using an algorithm that policy forbids). The dashboard’s visuals and context (as shown in their marketing screenshots) make it easier for CIOs/CISOs to make decisions, since it’s not just raw data but insight – for example, a gauge of how much of your traffic uses strong crypto vs weak crypto. Additionally, ISARA has roots in PQC R&D, so they bring expertise – Advance can be a stepping stone to implementing ISARA’s quantum-safe toolkits once the inventory is done.
Limitations
Because Advance relies on integration, if an organization doesn’t already have good NDR/EDR data collection, the value may be limited until those are in place. In that case, one might ask: why not just use a direct scanner? The ideal scenario is you already have some telemetry and Advance correlates it. If you’re starting from scratch, you may need to simultaneously deploy some sensors or rely on ISARA/partners to provide them. Also, as a platform that “sits on top,” it may not discover as deeply technical details as some specialized tools – e.g. it might tell you a certain application uses TLS 1.2 with RSA, but not necessarily trace it to the exact line of code (that’s outside its scope). It’s more of a high-level inventory and risk tool. For OT or very specialized systems, unless those feed logs into your NDR/EDR, Advance might not see them; you might then have to manually import some data. Another consideration: being agentless and central, it will heavily depend on data fidelity – any gaps in input will result in gaps in the inventory, so it requires confidence that your existing monitoring covers all devices and networks.
Use Cases
Advance is appealing to large enterprises and government departments that have already invested in security monitoring tools and want to layer cryptographic insight on top. For example, a government agency that must comply with the U.S. mandate to inventory crypto (per NSM-10 and the PQC Readiness Act) could use Advance to quickly compile data from their existing tools (Tanium, Netscout, etc.) and produce the required inventory and reports. It’s also a fit for financial institutions that have complex security ecosystems – they can plug Advance in to make sense of all the crypto-related data those systems collect. The fact that it’s low-impact makes it suitable for environments with change control concerns. For instance, a critical infrastructure operator could use Advance to inventory crypto on Windows and Linux servers via their existing agents without touching the PLCs and HMIs (for those, maybe they feed in data from an external scan). ISARA Advance ultimately is best when an organization values a unified, high-level view – it provides the “single pane of glass” for cryptographic posture. It might not replace detailed code scanners or protocol analyzers, but it will aggregate their findings and pinpoint where action is needed. Organizations looking to satisfy regulatory auditors quickly also benefit – Advance’s reports can serve as evidence of cryptographic inventory and management without the org building a solution in-house.
Tychon ACDI (Automated Cryptographic Discovery & Inventory)
Approach
Tychon, known for endpoint security in U.S. government circles, has a Quantum Readiness module that implements Automated Cryptography Discovery & Inventory (ACDI) targeted at compliance with NSM-10 and the U.S. federal PQC mandate (HR 7535). The Tychon ACDI approach is primarily endpoint-based, leveraging the Tychon agent (or its agentless queries) to scan each managed endpoint for cryptographic information. It gathers data such as: all certificates in the machine’s certificate stores (and can note issuer info, key lengths, expiration, even country of origin if relevant), any “soft certs” found on disk or in files, which encryption libraries are installed on the system (and their versions), and active encryption usage on the host (for example, it can list all currently open TLS/SSL connections and the ciphers they’re using). The tool then assembles an inventory of all this, and crucially, it scores and prioritizes the findings. For instance, it will identify which endpoints are using the weakest algorithms or have the most urgent vulnerabilities (like an expired certificate or a known-vulnerable TLS setting). The output is presented via dashboards (often integrated with Splunk or Elastic for government users) to fulfill reporting requirements. Tychon’s module can also enforce policies by integrating with its endpoint management capabilities – e.g. one could potentially script it to disable a protocol or alert an administrator when a forbidden crypto usage is detected.
Strengths
Tychon’s solution is laser-focused on meeting compliance-driven inventory needs. This means it comes with predefined queries and dashboards that align to the U.S. government requirements. A federal agency can install this and quickly get the data needed for reports such as “list of all systems using RSA/ECC and their key sizes” or “which systems have software using OpenSSL 1.x”. It automates a lot of the grunt work that, in the past, would have been done with manual scripts on each machine. The continuous monitoring aspect ensures that after the initial baseline, any changes (like a new certificate or a new app using TLS) are caught, so the inventory stays up-to-date. Another strength is endpoint depth: since it runs on the endpoint, it can see things network-only tools cannot – for example, an application that’s running locally and doing encryption to a file. Tychon also has the capability to take response actions. While primarily an inventory, in the Tychon console an admin could potentially one-click remediate certain findings (such as remove a disallowed cert or enable FIPS mode on a system) – leveraging the fact that it’s an endpoint management tool. For government users, it’s a familiar platform (Tychon is widely used in DoD), so training needs are minimal and it fits into existing cyber dashboards.
Limitations
Tychon ACDI is tailored for Windows and standard server OS endpoints – it’s not going to directly analyze the source code of custom applications (it might see the loaded libraries but not the code paths), nor will it monitor network traffic beyond what the host itself is doing. So it doesn’t replace a dedicated code scanner or a network sensor; it complements them by focusing on the endpoint’s perspective. Its scope is somewhat narrower: primarily identifying known cryptographic artifacts on the host. For instance, it might list that a server has a TLS 1.0 connection open, but it won’t automatically tell you which process or application on that server initiated it (though an admin could investigate via other Tychon telemetry). In an OT environment, like others, you wouldn’t deploy Tychon on a PLC or an embedded system – you’d only cover the Windows/Linux machines in that network (perhaps engineering workstations, etc.). Also, outside of the U.S. federal space, some enterprises might not be familiar with Tychon. They could use it, but it’s clearly built with U.S. government standards in mind (even the term ACDI comes from CISA guidance).
Use Cases
Tychon ACDI shines for U.S. federal agencies and contractors who need a rapid, automated way to comply with cryptographic inventory mandates. If an agency must report all quantum-vulnerable systems by a certain deadline, deploying Tychon’s module across their endpoints will gather much of that information with minimal manual effort. It’s also useful in enterprise IT as a quick audit tool – for example, a company could run it across their PCs and servers to find any usage of deprecated protocols like SMBv1 or old SSL, since those show up in the host’s cryptographic data. Financial institutions concerned about regulatory audits (FFIEC, etc.) might similarly use it to verify that all workstations and servers are using up-to-date crypto. It could serve as a “triage” tool: run Tychon to get an initial list of problems (e.g. outdated certificates, weak cipher usage), then use more specialized tools to dig into those problems. Because it integrates with common SIEM dashboards, it’s good for ongoing monitoring: you can have a Splunk dashboard that in real time flags if any endpoint starts using an unauthorized algorithm. In summary, Tychon ACDI is the go-to in environments where endpoint compliance and rapid reporting are key drivers, especially under strict government timelines.
AppViewX AVX PQC Assessment Tool
Approach
AppViewX, known for certificate lifecycle management, introduced the AVX ONE PQC Assessment Tool in 2025 to help organizations gain “complete cryptographic visibility” as they prepare for post-quantum migration. This tool systematically scans across hybrid multi-cloud infrastructure and CI/CD pipelines to locate all instances of quantum-vulnerable cryptography. Concretely, it performs static analysis on application code repositories to detect usage of algorithms like RSA, ECC, SHA-1, etc. (code pillar). It examines software dependencies and libraries to identify any that include weak cryptography (dependency pillar). It inventories all digital certificates in use – gathering their algorithms (RSA vs. ECDSA, key length) and where they’re deployed (certificate pillar). It also reviews configuration files and environment settings for insecure protocol settings (e.g. a config allowing TLS 1.0 or using a weak cipher suite – configuration pillar). The findings from these scans are consolidated into a single dashboard for the organization. The tool doesn’t stop at discovery: it automatically generates a detailed Cryptographic Bill of Materials (CBOM) for the environment, computes a “PQC readiness score” to quantify how prepared the organization is, and provides step-by-step remediation guidance to replace or upgrade weak cryptography. It can output reports in CycloneDX or CSV format and integrate with AppViewX’s broader platform (so the inventory can feed into ongoing crypto-agility operations).
Strengths
The AVX PQC Assessment Tool leverages AppViewX’s expertise in certificate and key management, extending it to a full crypto inventory. It’s very comprehensive in scope – essentially covering applications (code), infrastructure (configs), and identity components (certs/keys). A major strength is the actionability of its output: by giving a readiness score and concrete remediation steps, it closes the loop between discovery and action. The generation of a CBOM means organizations get a tangible deliverable that can be shared with risk managers or regulators to show “here is our cryptography inventory”. The integration with CI/CD is another forward-looking feature: it can plug into build pipelines (GitHub Actions, AWS CodeBuild, etc.) to enforce checks – for instance, blocking a deployment if it introduces a banned algorithm. This helps maintain continuous compliance and prevents regression. For clients already using AppViewX for certificate management, this tool fits naturally and can immediately enrich the certificate data with algorithm risk info. Additionally, the dashboard and reporting are tailored to both technical and executive audiences (they mention executive dashboards and drill-downs), which facilitates cross-team collaboration – e.g. DevOps can see technical details in code, while a CISO sees an overall risk score.
Limitations
The AppViewX tool is relatively new, so like any new product it may evolve with user feedback. Its strength in code and pipeline scanning means it’s most effective for organizations that have a lot of in-house developed software – if you mostly use third-party software, the code scan part might not apply (though you’d still use the cert and config scanning). The flip side is that it might not perform dynamic analysis or network analysis, so any cryptography that doesn’t appear in code or config (e.g. an external black-box device using outdated crypto) would not be discovered except via the certificates it uses. Thus, it likely needs to be complemented by network scanning for full coverage in environments with lots of black-box systems. Because it integrates into CI/CD, using that feature requires the organization to be at a certain maturity level in DevOps practices – if you don’t have automated builds or your code is not regularly scanned, you’d need to adopt some new processes to maximize value. Another consideration is that it’s geared towards PQC readiness specifically; while it will certainly catch classical crypto issues (like MD5 certs), its framing is around quantum vulnerability, so an organization whose primary concern is something like FIPS compliance might need to interpret the results accordingly (though weak crypto is weak crypto, regardless of PQC context).
Use Cases
The AVX ONE PQC Assessment Tool is ideal for enterprises that are kicking off post-quantum migration projects and already rely on AppViewX for certificates or PKI. For example, a large bank preparing for upcoming PQC regulations can use it to scan their entire environment – codebases, app configs, certificates – and get a prioritized list of what to fix (e.g. “replace these 50 TLS certificates that use RSA-2048 with larger keys or PQC certs,” “refactor this piece of code using a deprecated library”). It’s particularly useful in DevSecOps environments, where the integration into CI/CD ensures that as applications are updated, they are checked for crypto compliance automatically. Sectors like technology, finance, and healthcare, which often have to juggle both compliance (HIPAA, PCI) and future-proofing, can benefit: the tool helps with immediate compliance (finding insecure stuff now) and future compliance (quantum-safe roadmap). Also, organizations that have a mandate to produce a Cryptographic BOM (some regulatory frameworks are heading that way) will find the one-click CBOM generation very helpful. In summary, AppViewX’s tool is suited for crypto-modernization initiatives within enterprises that want to involve multiple teams (security, DevOps, network) in the discovery and remediation process, under a unifying framework tailored for the quantum era.
Open-Source Tools and Frameworks
Not all cryptographic inventory efforts require commercial tools; there is an emerging ecosystem of open-source tools and standards to assist in this process:
- CBOM Standards (CycloneDX 1.6): The community has extended the Software BOM concept to cryptography. The CycloneDX schema now includes a Cryptography Bill of Materials (CBOM) format for documenting algorithms, keys, protocols, and related crypto material. This provides a vendor-neutral way to exchange cryptographic inventory data. Organizations can adopt this standard to ensure that whether they use one tool or multiple, everything can be compiled into a consistent report.
- IBM’s CBOMkit: IBM Research open-sourced a toolkit called CBOMkit to help generate and manage cryptography inventories. It includes components like Hyperion (which scans source code repositories for cryptographic API calls and produces a CBOM), Theia (scans container images or file directories for crypto artifacts to generate CBOMs), a CBOM Viewer for visualization, and a Compliance Engine to check CBOMs against policies (for example, flagging any non-quantum-safe algorithms). These tools can be integrated into CI/CD pipelines or run on-demand, allowing teams to create their own cryptographic inventory without purchasing a solution. The fact that IBM donated this to Linux Foundation suggests it’s meant to be widely adopted and integrated.
- Static Analysis Queries (CodeQL & SonarQube): Researchers and practitioners have developed queries for static analysis engines like GitHub CodeQL to automatically detect cryptography usage in code. For instance, queries can find all calls to crypto libraries (OpenSSL, BouncyCastle, Java JCA, etc.) and output what algorithms or key sizes are being used. These can then be converted into CBOM entries. Similarly, an open-source SonarQube plugin exists that scans source code for cryptographic assets and generates a CBOM as output. This plugin (part of the “CBOMkit” toolset and also on GitHub under the PQCA project) can be plugged into a SonarQube server to flag any discovered crypto in each build. Such static tools are highly customizable – you can write rules to detect even organization-specific crypto implementations (e.g. if you have a custom encryption function, you can add it to the detection rules).
- Network Monitoring (Zeek and others): On the network side, open-source monitoring like Zeek (formerly Bro) can be scripted to record cryptographic parameters from traffic. Zeek has scripts that log TLS versions, cipher suites, certificate chains, etc., which can effectively serve as a cryptography inventory for network communications. While not as turn-key as commercial probes, a skilled engineer can deploy Zeek on a span port and over time collect data that reveals, for example, “We saw 500 TLS connections today, 5 of which were using TLS 1.0 (weak), 300 using TLS 1.2 with AES-GCM (strong), etc.” These logs, when aggregated, form a picture of the network crypto posture.
- Simple Code Scanners: Even straightforward grep-like tools have been open-sourced by communities (for example, Wind River’s community released a scanner script that searches through code for known algorithm names or constant identifiers like “AES”, “RSA”, “SHA1”, etc., to flag where cryptography might be used). While this approach has low accuracy compared to full static analysis (it might catch false positives and miss context like key sizes), it can be a quick first pass to scope out where crypto is present in a codebase. Academic efforts like the Cryptoscope tool (from IBM Research) also illustrate how advanced static analysis can build a detailed inventory of crypto operations by analyzing control-flow and data-flow in code – these techniques often trickle into open-source as prototypes or papers that others can emulate.
Strengths of Open-Source
The obvious benefit is cost and flexibility. Tools like CBOMkit or CodeQL queries can be used freely and tailored to an organization’s specific technologies. They can often be integrated directly into development pipelines (e.g., as part of CI tests) to maintain an up-to-date inventory continuously. Open standards like CycloneDX mean that even if you use multiple tools, you can merge their output – for example, combine a Zeek-generated CBOM of network usage with a CodeQL-generated CBOM of application usage, giving a fuller picture. The community-driven nature means these tools are rapidly evolving to handle new languages and scenarios (especially as interest in PQC grows).
Limitations of Open-Source
DIY solutions require in-house expertise to set up and interpret. Static analysis might require writing custom rules for each programming language and crypto library pattern (though projects like CBOMkit have out-of-the-box support for common ones). The accuracy of open-source scanners may not match commercial tools without significant tuning – they might miss cryptography that’s implemented in obscure ways (e.g., a homebrew XOR cipher won’t be flagged unless you specifically code for it) or conversely flag things that aren’t actually in use (just imported). There’s also the support factor: if an open-source tool has a bug or doesn’t support a framework you use, you’ll need the skills to modify it or wait for the community to do so. Despite these, many organizations successfully use open-source as part of their inventory. For instance, a company might use CodeQL for code, Zeek for network, and manage the results in an Excel or internal database – achieving a decent inventory at low cost, albeit with more manual effort.
Use Cases
Open-source approaches are attractive for organizations with strong engineering teams and perhaps tighter budgets or a desire for full control. A software firm could embed CBOM generation in every project’s CI pipeline, so every release comes with an updated CBOM (this is already being done in some open-source projects to track their crypto usage for transparency). A security team could run a CodeQL scan across all corporate GitHub repositories to quickly enumerate where cryptographic APIs are called, giving a starting inventory for an AppSec program. Government and academia also use open-source in pilot projects – for example, NIST’s NCCoE has published example queries and configurations for tools like CodeQL as part of their PQC migration guidance (the idea being to share knowledge on how to do this without proprietary tools). In highly sensitive environments, open-source tools can be vetted and run entirely internally (no external connectivity or data sharing), which appeals to those who cannot use cloud-based vendor solutions for confidentiality reasons. In summary, while open-source solutions might not be as polished out-of-the-box, they are powerful components of a multi-faceted cryptographic inventory strategy, and they promote an open, standard way of reporting (so your inventory doesn’t get locked into a vendor-specific format).
Conclusion
In practice, achieving a comprehensive cryptographic inventory often requires combining multiple tools and methodologies. Each solution above has blind spots: one might excel at catching code-level issues but miss network usage, another might see network traffic but miss dormant code, etc. Organizations starting a crypto inventory (especially as part of PQC readiness) should evaluate these tools in terms of their environment: for example, pairing a passive network sensor with an agent-based host scanner and a static code analyzer will cover most bases – network, runtime, and code. Many of the vendors themselves support integrations (as seen by partnerships between endpoint and network tool makers). The goal is to aggregate all findings, typically into a unified inventory database or CBOM repository, where overlapping data can be correlated and gaps identified.
It’s also important to involve the human element alongside these automated tools. No tool can perfectly scan proprietary closed-source products – here, engaging with the vendor (asking for their cryptography documentation or SBOM/CBOM) is key. Likewise, internal developers and architects should review inventory findings to fill in context (they might know of legacy components or upcoming upgrades not evident from a scan). By using a multi-pronged toolkit and smart human analysis, organizations can confidently map out their cryptographic landscape and ensure they’re prepared to replace vulnerable cryptography before threats materialize.
Disclaimer: I have hands‑on experience with several, but not all, of the products discussed here. My company, Applied Quantum, maintains partnership relationships with some of the vendors mentioned. The brief tool descriptions are intended purely as illustrative summaries drawn from publicly available vendor documentation, press releases, and technical papers; they should not be construed as exhaustive evaluations or endorsements. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, neither I nor Applied Quantum assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or subsequent changes in product capabilities. Inclusion or omission of a vendor does not imply approval, disapproval, or recommendation. Organizations should conduct their own due diligence before selecting or deploying any cryptographic‑inventory solution. If you require independent assistance in assessing, selecting, or integrating these tools within your environment, Applied Quantum can provide tailored support under a formal consulting engagement.
