# ML-DSA-65 vs ECDSA: what post-quantum attestation changes for verifiers

> Your verifier checks a signature today. Post-quantum migration means the algorithm on the attestation path matters as much as the yes/no answer.

- URL: https://www.affix-io.com/blog/ml-dsa-65-vs-ecdsa-post-quantum-attestation/
- Published: 2026-08-28
- Section: Security
- Keywords: ML-DSA-65, ECDSA vs ML-DSA, post-quantum attestation, FIPS 204, NCSC PQC migration

## Summary
ECDSA signatures are fine today but sit on NCSC migration timelines. ML-DSA-65 (FIPS 204) changes what verifiers must accept and how long attestations remain trustworthy.

## FAQ
Q: Should we stop using ECDSA immediately?
A: Not everywhere at once. NCSC timelines point to planning by 2028, priority migration by 2031, and completion by 2035. Start with high-value attestations: eligibility decisions, audit logs, and long-lived credentials.

Q: What is ML-DSA-65?
A: ML-DSA-65 is a module-lattice digital signature algorithm standardised as NIST FIPS 204. It is designed to resist known quantum attacks on classical schemes like ECDSA and RSA.

Q: Do verifiers need new libraries?
A: Yes. Your verifier must understand ML-DSA public keys and signature encoding. AffixIO publishes attestation keys and documents the verify path so you can pin algorithms explicitly.

Q: Are ML-DSA signatures much larger than ECDSA?
A: Yes. Expect larger keys and signatures. That affects headers, QR payloads, and offline queues. Design for the size now rather than assuming 64-byte ECDSA forever.

## Internal links
- https://www.affix-io.com/ncsc/
- https://www.affix-io.com/pqc-gauge/
- https://www.affix-io.com/security/

AffixIO blog. Human-authored. United Kingdom.