Hidden runtime use
Dynamic libraries, vendor binaries, and actual protocol behavior can differ from the static picture.
For security and platform teams with regulated Linux estates
Know what crypto is running before you commit to a PQC migration.
Laviq gives your team runtime evidence of active cryptography, the context to prioritize what should change, and a defensible starting point for post-quantum migration planning.
Runtime proofWhat actually executes
Migration prioritiesWhat should change first
Evidence packageWhat to take into review
readiness context / backend derived
The decision path
Post-quantum cryptography is a runtime migration problem.
Start with the path that executes today. Laviq carries that evidence into the context your security and platform teams need to decide what changes first.
Explore the evidence model →- 01ObservedRuntime proof
What crypto, process, and applicable network behavior were captured.
- 02DerivedMigration context
Findings, ownership, coverage, and relationships for a focused review.
- 03Scoped actionPolicy protection
Selected matching traffic can be evaluated for a policy-driven protection path.
Explanatory model · screenshots elsewhere on this page are real Console captures.
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.
No decision context
Without workload, owner, coverage, and network context, a crypto list does not tell a team what to change first.
Migration is delayed
Legacy systems and vendor dependencies can make immediate application remediation slow, risky, or unavailable.
The Laviq assessment // 02
Turn runtime behavior into a migration decision your team can act on.
The engagement starts with a focused workload, produces explicit evidence and coverage context, then turns that work into a prioritized review path.
Capture the active path
Establish runtime crypto and applicable network evidence with process and implementation context from a scoped Linux workload.
Review what matters first
Bring findings, inventory, correlations, performance, ownership, and coverage into a single migration conversation.
Leave with a decision path
Document practical next steps: application migration candidates, open evidence gaps, and selected-flow protection questions for design partners.
raw evidence / observed
What Laviq proves
Evidence you can inspect, not a black-box risk score.
The console keeps the proof trail visible: what was observed, where it ran, which implementation was involved, and which evidence gaps remain.
- Raw Evidence: captured crypto and network event records.
- Findings: backend-owned risk records for review.
- Inventory: collected runtime and software context, not proof of absence.
- Correlations: backend-derived relationships with explicit status.
Use cases // 03
Built for the work between discovery and migration.
Use cases describe the buyer question Laviq helps answer. They do not turn a static list or a concept diagram into proof.
Where to start
Start with the workload where a wrong migration decision would be expensive.
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.
Selected-flow protection
Move from the migration question to a scoped policy decision.
Protection policies can be configured for selected matching connections. The console makes the target, current configuration, and proposed protection visible for review.
This capability applies to new matching traffic; it is not a claim that every communication path is protected.
policy workspace / selected matching traffic
Design partners
Start your PQC migration with proof, not assumptions.
Tell us about the Linux workload, vendor dependency, or migration question that needs a clearer evidence path. We will scope the right starting assessment with you.