At the ETSI Security Conference 2025, we spoke with Mark Pecen, Chair of the ETSI Technical Committee on Quantum Technologies, about the establishment and vision of ETSI’s new committee dedicated to quantum technologies. Pecen discussed the growing industry interest behind the initiative, the committee’s key focus areas—including quantum communications, sensing, security, and random number generation—and the importance of getting standardisation right to enable interoperability. Mark also shared perspectives on how quantum technologies intersect with European policy initiatives, the security implications of quantum computing, and how early industry engagement in standards development can accelerate adoption and innovation.
What was the driving motivation behind ETSI establishing the new Technical Committee on Quantum Technologies? What is its vision?
There have been several members who have been interested in this for several years now. We thought it was a little bit premature at first. We brought this proposal to the board, worked with one of the board members, Axel Ferrazzini, and we put the terms of reference together for the new Technical Committee. We scoped it to work on quantum projects. For example, I have a TR work item on quantum random number generators. It’s in TC Cyber at the moment, because the use of random number generators is often associated with security applications. There were 24 members at ETSI who supported the creation of TC Quantum Technology, and we brought the proposal back to the board, and it was agreed.
So there are several key focus areas identified: quantum communications, networking, sensing, satellite communications, QRNGs, which you mentioned, and quantum security. Why these areas?
Well, these are areas that are emerging. They’re coming out of universities and small labs and going into products like quantum sensors. I was the president of a company that studied quantum sensing using Rydberg atoms for a few years, and it’s a useful and practical technology for radio frequency measurements. It’s something that you can actually deploy today. There are also quantum gyroscopes, quantum accelerometers, and these types of things, all evolving to more massive deployment.
How will this contribute to European initiatives like the European Quantum Act and the European Chips Act? And why is standardisation important for policy objectives?
Well, I think you hear at a lot of these standards conferences that we need more standards. The truth is, we don’t. We need the correct standards, and I think if we‘recareful and do this right, it will help interoperability among a lot of different companies. Because right now, if you look at quantum random number generators, there are companies that make these products, and everyone has a different interface definition. This fact complicates the supply chain for the manufacturer who uses these entropy generation chips, in the event that they need to change suppliers if, for example, a shortage of material occurs. The TR is an informative document, and can be viewed as a sort of ingredients list, where the TS is a normative standard representing a “recipe” of sorts. It prescribes certain things, like defining a programmable interface, opcodes, parameters, these kinds of things. In this way,using the same interface or same style of interface between companies, more products can interoperate.
Do you have timing for these activities for the year?
Yes, we’ll likely start the TS activity in March or April. Several of us already kind of knowhow to proceed.
So how does ETSI plan to coordinate the Technical Committee‘s work with other international standards organisations and regulatory bodies to avoid duplication and ensure global alignment?
Well, ETSI does this all the time. We take the advice of ETSI officials. They have official liaisons between standards bodies. Some of the bodies are like ISO, which is very different from ETSI, and ITU, which is a treaty organisation. It’s important to liase with these other organisations because all of us have members who potentially bring useful input to the table.
What would you say are the biggest technical challenges in standardising quantum technology today?
There are several, but like I say, we don’t want to standardise everything. We want to standardise things like interfaces, characteristics, power consumption, required output, data rates—things of that nature that have impact on the supply chain ecosystem. We don’t want to standardise the whole product, for example, because then everybody’s product would become almost identical with no differentiators.
Are you planning to incorporate outcomes from Horizon Europe and other research frameworks into the standards development?
Yes.
Quantum technology presents both significant opportunities and potential security risks. Which do you see as greater?
I think it’s a little bit of both. Quantum computing is a security risk when these devices become big enough and powerful enough—when quantum computers become cryptographically relevant and able to quickly compromise security systems.But here’s the thing: if you have 100 CPUs in a computing centre and you want to double that, you need to add another 100. But if you have 100 qubits and you want to double the power, you only need to add 1 additional qubit, because the effect on computing power is exponential. That’s the potential danger for security. You keep adding a qubit now and then and your quantum computer gains quite a bit more power. In addition, breakthroughs in the quantum computing domain are starting to happen regularly.
Can you elaborate on the Technical Committee‘s role in standardising satellite quantum communications and supporting European quantum communication infrastructure?
We haven’t started planning on that part yet. We just identified it as an area.
How do you see Technical Committee work influencing industry adoption of quantum technologies? What benefits can companies expect from early engagement?
Interoperability. If companies can interoperate between products and their components, this will increase adoption, because some of the uncertainty in the supply chain would be reduced. For example, my company, EigenQ, is a manufacturer. We make secure communication equipment with Hewlett–Packard Enterprise. We have a unit that goes into the enterprise server. It contains a sophisticated encrypter/decrypter unit, is quantum-safe, updatable, and runs on the latest post-quantum NIST FIPS 203, 204, and 205 protocols at the moment. It generates its key from an onboard network of high-speed quantum random number generators. It’s connected directly, which protects against external attackers from compromising the key. And since we don’t import entropy or random numbers to this device, the key is totally safe. Once we standardise the interfaces for the entropy generation chips, we’ll be able to use any manufacturer’s chips who support the ETSI standard interface specification.
When you talk about sensors, what is it for?
There are multiple types: radio-frequency quantum sensors, sensors that use entanglement for imaging. They can improve sensitivity rather than resolution. Accelerometers detect movement, gyroscopes detect position.
So use cases would be, for instance, medical?
Potentially to detect falls or similar applications. Navigation is another.
How about satellites? Communications are getting more important, as with 5Gand upcoming 6G. What about quantum there? What’s the difference between current technology and quantum technology for satellites?
It depends on what the members or the industry want to do. They can send their experts here as well as other standards bodies. ETSI works pretty quickly compared to many other standards bodies.
Looking ahead, what are your long-term ambitions for this committee and how do you see it shaping the global quantum technology landscape?
It’s hard to say at present, but it would be nice to see sensors—quantum sensors,maybe quantum gyroscopes. It depends on the interests of the members. This is a membership organization with much work being done by manufacturers, so rather than trying to mandate one evolutionary path or another, we let the members decide their own direction.
