A Governance-Driven PGP Key Lifecycle Framework for Compliant B2B Data Exchange
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15680/IJCTECE.2023.0601006Keywords:
PGP Key Management, B2B Data Exchange, Cryptographic Governance, Regulatory Compliance, Auditability, Key Lifecycle Automation, Secure IntegrationAbstract
Controlled enterprises rely heavily on PGP encryption to secure B2B data exchanges; however, inadequate key lifecycle management remains a major cause of operational disruption and regulatory non-compliance. In many organizations, cryptographic keys are managed manually and without centralized governance, leading to key expiration, onboarding delays, and audit deficiencies. This paper proposes a governance-driven PGP key lifecycle framework embedded within enterprise middleware platforms. The framework provides end-to-end control over key generation, partner onboarding, automated rotation, revocation, and evidence-grade audit logging in alignment with regulatory requirements such as PCI-DSS and HIPAA. A quantitative pre- and post-implementation study conducted over a 12-month period in a regulated enterprise environment demonstrates substantial improvements. Key-related security incidents were reduced by 80.8%, average partner onboarding time decreased by 77%, and key rotation compliance increased from 60.9% to 93.7%. Audit observations related to cryptographic controls declined by 75.7%, while audit evidence retrieval time was reduced from 6.4 hours to 1.2 hours. These results demonstrate that automated cryptographic governance significantly enhances security, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance in enterprise B2B data exchange
References
[1] Ruoti, S., Andersen, J., Zappala, D., & Seamons, K. (2015). Why Johnny still, still can’t encrypt: Evaluating the usability of a modern PGP client. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1510.08555
[2] Wilson, D., & Ateniese, G. (2015). From Pretty Good To Great: Enhancing PGP using Bitcoin and the Blockchain. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1508.04868
[3] Sandoval, I. V., Atashpendar, A., Lenzini, G., & Ryan, P. Y. A. (2021). PakeMail: Authentication and key management in decentralized secure email and messaging via PAKE. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 102–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90428-9_5
[4] Beiter, M., Mont, M. C., Chen, L., & Pearson, S. (2014). End-to-end policy based encryption techniques for multi-party data management. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 36(4), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2013.12.004
[5] Lam, K., Chung, S., Gu, M., & Sun, J. (2003). Security middleware for enhancing interoperability of Public Key Infrastructure. Computers & Security, 22(6), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4048(03)00615-1
[6] Clark, J., C, V. O. P., Ruoti, S., Seamons, K., & Zappala, D. (2018). SOK: Securing Email -- A Stakeholder-Based Analysis (Extended Version). arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1804.07706
[7] Kurnikov, A., Paverd, A., Mannan, M., & Asokan, N. (2018). Keys in the Clouds. Keys in the Clouds, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230833.3234518
[8] Salman, T., Zolanvari, M., Erbad, A., Jain, R., & Samaka, M. (2018). Security Services Using Blockchains: A State of the art survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(1), 858–880. https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2018.2863956
[9] Tan, H., Ma, M., Labiod, H., Boudguiga, A., Zhang, J., & Chong, P. H. J. (2016). A Secure and Authenticated Key Management Protocol (SA-KMP) for vehicular networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 65(12), 9570–9584. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2016.2621354
