and less well-resourced governments, as well as many NGOs, academic institutions, and other organizations could fail to do so. Organizations that face the biggest challenges are those that hold data sets that are both sensitive and complex, making migration to quantum-safe cryptography more difficult. There is an even more fundamental risk on the horizon for all organizations. Protecting against Shor’s algorithm is likely to only be a temporary solution, as new quantum algorithms (in addition to Shor's) are being researched that could in future be used in cryptographic attacks. Targeted organizations might not even know about the existence of such new quantum attack algorithms before attacks occur. With a high level of Geoeconomic confrontation anticipated in the coming years, according to the GRPS, it is to be expected that adversarial governments or other actors with quantum technology capabilities may use these against each other and their respective societies and economies. Further down the line, state-sanctioned criminal groups could also find ways to access quantum capabilities and create new quantum algorithms. Ultimately, the technological solution to quantum computing attacks may come from the field of quantum communications itself. However, previous, arguably less difficult technological shifts have taken a decade or more to implement,127 and updating cryptographic infrastructure to the extent needed will be complex.128 With the nature of the quantum cryptographic threat itself likely to evolve, quantum safety interventions will need to become ongoing efforts.129 Maintaining such cryptographic agility will become a major challenge. Respondents to the GRPS recognize these risk interconnections, identifying Cyber insecurity as the leading consequence of Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies (including quantum), followed by Misinformation and disinformation and Adverse outcomes of AI technologies (Figure 48). Widespread breaking of the cryptographic protocols that underpin trust infrastructures could contribute, for example, to more frequent and sophisticated cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, causing more and longer blackouts, contaminated water supplies or transport accidents (see Section 2.5: Infrastructure endangered). This would push digital security in a quantum era firmly into the realm of physical safety and national security. Current and historical data privacy could also be compromised. Breaches could in turn lead to an Inequality Adverse outcomes of AI technologies Misinformation and disinformation Economic downturn Cyber insecurity Societal polarization Online harms Censorship and surveillance Concentration of strategic resources and technologies Geoeconomic confrontation Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies Disruptions to a systemically important supply chain Erosion of human rights and/or of civic freedoms Disruptions to critical infrastructure Inequality Adverse outcomes of AI technologies Misinformation and disinformation Economic downturn Cyber insecurity Societal polarization Online harms Censorship and surveillance Concentration of strategic resources and technologies Geoeconomic confrontation Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies Disruptions to a systemically important supply chain Erosion of human rights and/or of civic freedoms Disruptions to critical infrastructure Global risks landscape: Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies FIGURE 48 Source World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 2025-2026Edges Relative inﬂuence High LowMediumRisk inﬂuenceNodesOverview High LowMediumRisk categories Economic Environmental Geopolitical Societal Technological Global Risks Report 2026 55