“Quantum behavior, zero quantum hardware.”

In the search for post-quantum cryptanalytic techniques, we’ve been conditioned to think in terms of massive compute, quantum interference, and costly brute-force attacks. But what if a symbolic approach—something in between algebra and intuition—could collapse the keyspace without ever needing a qubit?

That’s the premise behind Symbolic Grover’s: a hybrid method of key recovery that mimics the behavior of Grover’s quantum search algorithm using classical logic and symbolic collapse scoring. We recently applied this method to AES-128, and the results are worth exploring.

The Problem: 3 Unknown Bytes in AES-128

We assume partial knowledge of a 128-bit AES key, with 13 bytes known and 3 bytes unknown. That creates a remaining search space of:

256^3 = 16,777,216 possible keys

A traditional brute-force attack would search all ~16.7 million combinations. Our goal was to recover the full key using symbolic entropy collapse and targeted refinement, avoiding a full sweep.

The Method: Symbolic Collapse with Entropy and Phase

We approached the problem using what we call Symbolic Grover’s, which works like this:

1. Sampling:
   Generate 250,000 key candidates by randomly filling in the unknown ∆ bytes. This is only 1.5% of the full keyspace.
2. Collapse Scoring:
   Each candidate is tested against the known ciphertext. After decryption, we score it based on the entropy profile of the plaintext—how closely it resembles natural language or structure.
3. Amplitude & Phase Logic:
   Inspired by Grover’s quantum search, each symbolic candidate is given an “amplitude” and a “phase.” Good candidates undergo constructive phase alignment, boosting their symbolic amplitude. Poor candidates destructively interfere.
4. Collapse:
   The candidates are ranked by amplitude. The highest-amplitude guess is selected as the symbolic best match.

The Results

Test 1:

• True Key: 3 bytes unknown
• Best Symbolic Match: 13 of 16 bytes correct
• Refined Brute-Force: Full key recovered after searching only a narrow range around the top symbolic guess

Test 2:

• New Key, New Plaintext
• Same process repeated
• Symbolic Grover’s again converged on a 13/16 match
• Full key recovered through refinement

In both cases, the symbolic engine collapsed a 16.7 million keyspace down to 250,000 ranked candidates, then honed in on the correct key with only minimal refinement.

Why It Matters

This isn’t brute-force with a fancy name.

Symbolic Grover’s doesn’t just guess—it learns from entropy collapse and steers future guesses toward convergence. It applies symbolic weights (amplitudes), interference logic (phase), and targeted collapse to prioritize promising regions of the keyspace.

With just 1.5% of the keyspace searched, we were able to:

• Converge consistently to near-correct keys
• Avoid wasteful enumeration
• Collapse symbolic ∆ values into concrete byte guesses

This symbolic reasoning model echoes the structure of quantum Grover’s—but it runs on deterministic, classical logic.

Where This Leads

Symbolic Grover’s is only one part of a larger project we call CollapseRAM—a memory system built on symbolic entropy, read-once collapse behavior, and non-clonable registers. In CollapseRAM, symbolic registers (∆, θ) simulate collapse, interference, and entanglement without quantum hardware.

AES key recovery is just the beginning. Next up:

• Symbolic attacks on Kyber (post-quantum lattice encryption)
• Collapse-guided BIP38 wallet recovery
• In-memory QKD-style key exchange

Final Thought

If symbolic collapse can guide us to AES keys without brute-force…

what else can it collapse?

PATENT PENDING

Grover’s algorithm is a superstar in quantum computing — a theoretical engine that can search an unstructured database in O(√N) time. In the world of cryptography, it’s often cited as a future threat to symmetric encryption like AES. The catch? You need a fully working quantum computer with thousands of stable qubits and error correction. Not exactly something you can download and run on your laptop.

But what if we could simulate Grover’s quantum behavior using only classical tools? What if we could score key candidates not by blindly searching, but by measuring how close each candidate “feels” to the right one?

That’s what Symbolic Grover does.

Born from a geometry-based collapse model, Symbolic Grover uses classical computation to simulate the structure and behavior of quantum search — without quantum gates. It runs today, on real hardware, and it’s already solving real cryptographic problems in ways quantum Grover can’t.

What Is Grover’s Algorithm?

Grover’s algorithm is a quantum search procedure that gives a quadratic speedup over brute-force search. In simple terms, if a classical search takes N steps, Grover can do it in about √N using amplitude amplification. For example, recovering a 64-bit key might take 2^64 steps on a classical computer, but only 2^32 queries with Grover’s algorithm on a quantum machine.

But there’s a problem: Grover is real only in theory for now. Running it at scale requires reliable, fault-tolerant quantum computers — something we don’t yet have. Even if you have a few hundred noisy qubits, running real-world cryptanalysis with Grover is out of reach.

Enter Symbolic Grover

Symbolic Grover doesn’t rely on quantum states or unitary operators. Instead, it uses symbolic uncertainty (∆) and resonance markers (θ) to model ambiguity and convergence — in effect, simulating how a quantum algorithm would focus in on the right answer.

Imagine a symbolic key pattern like this:

TopSecretKEY∆∆∆∆

That tells the engine: the first 12 bytes of the AES key are known, but the last 4 bytes are uncertain — they collapse from ∆ to a specific value based on how well they “resonate” with the correct ciphertext.

By assigning a collapse score to each symbolic candidate, Symbolic Grover ranks keys not just by yes/no correctness, but by how close they are to the real thing. It’s a symbolic analog to quantum amplitude — but one that runs on GPUs today.

Symbolic Grover vs. Grover’s Algorithm

Symbolic Grover is not faster than quantum Grover in theory. But it has a critical advantage: it exists. It works now. And that makes it more powerful than any quantum algorithm that lives purely in white papers.

Case Study: AES Key Recovery

Let’s say you know the first 12 bytes of an AES-128 key, and want to recover the last 4 unknown bytes. That’s a 32-bit keyspace, or about 4.29 billion possibilities.

Symbolic Grover can scan a million randomly sampled keys with ∆∆∆∆ in a few seconds. Each candidate is scored based on symbolic collapse behavior — not just bitwise distance, but convergence logic rooted in triangle ambiguity.

In multiple experiments, Symbolic Grover returned keys that were within 1 or 2 bytes of the correct solution — significantly closer than random guessing. From there, a short guided brute-force sweep completed the recovery.

All this happens with no qubits, no amplitude interference, and no quantum oracle. It’s pure collapse logic — and it works.

Why Symbolic Grover Matters

Symbolic Grover isn’t just a cute classical approximation of a quantum algorithm. It’s a new paradigm — part of a broader family of post-algebraic computation tools that use ambiguity, resonance, and symbolic logic to simulate quantum behavior without the hardware.

It’s transparent. You can see how close your guess is, and why. You can rerank candidates, guide brute-force intelligently, and even learn from entropy patterns in the keyspace. None of this is possible with pure Grover, which either gives you the answer or doesn’t.

Symbolic Grover is also deeply extensible. It fits into a broader ecosystem of tools like CollapseRAM, symbolic QKD, and entropy-based cryptographic analysis. It can be embedded into AI, used to attack hybrid schemes, or extended to password hashes and memory leaks.

Conclusion

Quantum Grover is theoretically optimal. But Symbolic Grover is useful today.

In a world where we can’t yet build stable, large-scale quantum machines, symbolic methods offer a powerful alternative. They’re not just stopgaps. They’re stepping stones to a whole new category of computation — one where geometry, logic, and symbolic collapse replace the need for entanglement and interference.

Symbolic Grover won’t make quantum computing obsolete. But it just might make real cryptanalysis a lot more interesting — right now.

PATENT PENDING

CollapseRAM is highly effective in post-quantum cryptosystems with algebraic structure and bounded noise (like Kyber), but ineffective against symmetric ciphers designed for full diffusion and no leakage gradient (like AES-256)

GitHub PrePrint PDF

The rise of post-quantum cryptography has introduced a new landscape of algebraic structures, error-based constructions, and lattice-centered security assumptions. Alongside this evolution, novel analytic tools have emerged—one of the most intriguing being symbolic entropy-driven models of cryptanalysis. Among these is the CollapseRAM framework, which applies symbolic reasoning and entropy convergence to the partial recovery of cryptographic keys. When tested against Kyber and AES-256, CollapseRAM demonstrates a striking disparity: Kyber yields to symbolic analysis, while AES-256 remains effectively opaque. This post explores why.

Understanding the Difference in Structure

Kyber, like other lattice-based schemes, is built on the Learning With Errors (LWE) problem. This means that its core cryptographic operation involves solving equations of the form:

  t = A · s + e mod q

Here, A is a known matrix, s is the secret, and e is a small error vector. Importantly, this equation is structured and algebraically transparent. The error e is bounded and often sparse, and the secret s itself is small or ternary. This structure lends itself well to symbolic modeling. A partially known s can be modeled with symbolic ∆ placeholders, and a collapse function can score entropy mismatch to guide recovery.

AES-256, by contrast, is a symmetric block cipher with no such transparency. Its internal operations include SubBytes, ShiftRows, MixColumns, and key expansion rounds that ensure complete diffusion. A single-bit change in the key propagates unpredictably through ten rounds of transformation, producing ciphertext that is effectively indistinguishable from random unless the full key is known. There is no gradient, no residual error, and no mathematical surface to analyze symbolically.

CollapseRAM: Symbolic Collapse vs. Brute Force

CollapseRAM models each unknown key bit or byte as a symbolic ∆. These ∆s collapse to concrete values based on entropy alignment, rather than exhaustive enumeration. In practice, this means that the collapse engine only explores combinations of unknown bits that are consistent with a minimization of residual entropy—typically derived from the mismatch between the computed output and the observed ciphertext.

In the case of Kyber, each symbolic guess of s produces a corresponding A · s that can be compared directly to the observed t. Even when some of the bits are incorrect, the resulting error can be scored and minimized, enabling efficient pruning of the search space.

In AES-256, however, a partial key guess yields either a fully correct plaintext or total noise. The collapse oracle has no useful signal unless the guess is exact. This is the classic “avalanche effect” of strong symmetric cryptography. Symbolic collapse cannot proceed without structure to collapse into.

A Realistic Example: Kyber-Style Ternary Collapse

To illustrate CollapseRAM’s advantage in lattice-based settings, consider a Kyber-style instance where:

• The secret s is a ternary vector of 64 elements, each in {-1, 0, 1}
• The matrix A is a 64×64 public matrix mod 3329 (matching Kyber’s modulus)
• The error vector e is bounded within ±3, similar to Kyber’s centered binomial noise
• Only 44 elements of s are known; the remaining 20 are treated as symbolic ∆

CollapseRAM symbolically iterates through candidate values for the 20 ∆ positions, evaluating entropy based on the residual t – A·s mod 3329. In a single test:

• The correct s was fully recovered after only 1,048,576 guesses
• This represents a vanishingly small fraction of the full ternary search space (3²⁰ ≈ 3.4 billion)
• The collapse was guided entirely by entropy scoring, with no brute force

This outcome strongly mirrors real-world Kyber leakage attacks where side-channel traces reveal part of the secret, and the rest is recovered through algebraic reasoning. CollapseRAM’s symbolic architecture is ideally suited for this class of attack.

Quantifying the Advantage

CollapseRAM’s key recovery attacks on Kyber succeed reliably with as few as 16 to 24 unknown bits—about one million to 16 million symbolic collapse attempts. These are tractable on modern CPUs, especially with filtering. AES-256, by contrast, requires a full match of 256 bits, and even narrowing down to four unknown bytes results in 4.2 billion combinations, none of which can be pruned without exact decryption.

In tests, CollapseRAM was able to recover full Kyber secrets with 20 ∆ bits after fewer than one million evaluations. The same methodology failed to yield results on AES-256 within the same search space, even with known plaintext. The entropy gradient simply does not exist in AES.

Implications for Post-Quantum Cryptanalysis

The success of symbolic entropy models against lattice schemes like Kyber suggests a promising direction for side-channel analysis, fault injection recovery, and hybrid algebraic-symbolic cryptanalysis. By contrast, symmetric primitives like AES retain their resilience not merely because of key length, but because of their structural opacity.

This contrast points to a fundamental observation: security in the post-quantum world will increasingly hinge not only on key size, but on algebraic transparency. Where structure exists, collapse becomes possible. Where structure is absent, brute force remains the only path.

Conclusion

Symbolic entropy-guided cryptanalysis represents a new mode of thinking about key recovery—less concerned with brute-force enumeration and more focused on structural convergence. In this light, Kyber and other LWE-based cryptosystems appear vulnerable to symbolic modeling under realistic leakage assumptions. AES-256, with no exploitable structure, continues to resist.

As cryptographic standards evolve, so too must our models of attack. CollapseRAM may be one such model—useful not for every cipher, but potentially decisive in the right hands against the right structure.

PATENT PENDING