Paper 2026/1416

Beyond Size: Do Hybrid PQC Certificates Actually Enforce the Classical–PQC Binding? A Cost-and-Security Study

Abstract

As TLS 1.3 migrates to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), hybrid X.509 transition strategies—alternative-signature (Catalyst), Composite, Chameleon, and signature combiners—are compared on cost but rarely on whether they actually enforce the classical↔PQC binding they promise. We show they often do not, and that the failure persists even in stacks that do check the binding. The same BouncyCastle library accepts a Catalyst certificate carrying a forged ML-DSA signature on its default path yet rejects it via an opt-in call; and wolfSSL, the only stack that checks a present alternative signature by default, cannot require one, so a stripped certificate is silently accepted (a path whose experimental build also shipped CVE-2026-5393). That no stack can mandate the binding is the surprise; that an ignored non-critical extension is skipped by nine verifiers is the expected X.509 baseline, which we reproduce with an independent non-BouncyCastle generator. Composite, by contrast, binds structurally (three verifiers across three OID families reject corruption of either half). Folding this measured enforcement axis into a four-axis cost model (strategy sizes differ by under 4.4%) overturns the cost-led recommendation: once enforcement is priced in, the compatibility winner Catalyst is displaced by a structurally-bound encoding—a combiner where the operator controls both endpoints, or Composite once a like-for-like P-256 pairing ships. A compatibility-led ranking can thus recommend a strategy whose PQC protection no deployed verifier enforces.