Software & SaaS | Modelled case study
Find hidden cryptography in a SaaS dependency graph
Which libraries, runtimes, services, and managed dependencies will block a cryptographic transition?
The modelled organisation
A recognisable problem reaches the operating agenda
This composite scenario follows the Application Security · Platform Engineering · Architecture functions. It is grounded in the cited problem context but does not identify a real customer.
Operating environment
A software provider ships frequent releases through source, build, package, deployment, dependency, and customer-assurance systems.
What is at stake
Customers and regulators need to distinguish an authorized release and evidenced control from a claim assembled after an incident.
Situation
SBOM package names do not reliably reveal certificates, protocol defaults, bundled providers, transitive crypto libraries, or runtime configuration.
Event that forces action
PQC roadmap, framework upgrade, merger integration, or a vulnerable cryptographic dependency.
Concrete system boundary
Systems this case study puts in scope
The model is specific about the operational surfaces that must be discovered, changed, or independently checked.
application dependencies
runtime and container images
managed cloud services
unsupported algorithm and ownership map
Modelled case study walkthrough
How this organisation would use QNSI
The walkthrough connects the real-world problem to a bounded QNSI contribution and an independently reviewable result.
Recognise the operating condition
SBOM package names do not reliably reveal certificates, protocol defaults, bundled providers, transitive crypto libraries, or runtime configuration.
Frame the decision the owners must make
Which libraries, runtimes, services, and managed dependencies will block a cryptographic transition?
Apply QNSI to the controlled boundary
Combine QNSI cryptographic discovery with software component and runtime ownership records to identify actual use and uncertainty.
Leave the team with a concrete result
A dependency-level crypto migration backlog with observed use, package origin, upgrade path, and false-positive status.
Prove the result in the organisation's environment
Engineering reproduces findings, tests upgraded dependencies, checks licensing, and verifies production negotiation and behavior.
What useful success looks like
A decision artifact plus proof from the real environment
The model stops at a target result. It becomes an actual case study only when a customer produces and independently validates this evidence in production.
Decision artifact
A dependency-level crypto migration backlog with observed use, package origin, upgrade path, and false-positive status.
Independent validation boundary
Engineering reproduces findings, tests upgraded dependencies, checks licensing, and verifies production negotiation and behavior.
Real-world problem grounding
Primary sources behind the model
These sources establish the external requirement, failure mode, or risk context used to model this case. They do not endorse HEOSSI or prove that QNSI completed the scenario.
Customer evidence status
This is modelled, not a customer claim
The organisation is a composite and the result is a target state. This page does not prove a deployment, customer outcome, certification, legal conclusion, regulator endorsement, or completed control.