PosQuantum
Technical Guide — PUCE Storage

Where does PUCE Storage fit?

Engine vs Storage. Backup Orchestrators vs Storage Layer. Integration scenarios. Real competitors. Everything explained without marketing — just technical facts.

1. PUCE Engine vs PUCE Storage

The Engine is the motor. Storage is the complete car. All PUCE products use the Engine internally.

PUCE Engine

The neural compression + post-quantum encryption library/SDK. The base technology ALL PUCE products use.

What it doesAnalyzes → Compresses (adaptive ML) → Encrypts (ML-KEM) → Signs (ML-DSA)
InterfaceSDK (Python/Node/Rust/Go/C#/Java/Swift/Kotlin/C++), CLI, REST API
Used forIntegrate PQ compression/encryption in ANY application
AnalogyV8 engine of a car

PUCE Storage

Enterprise object storage system, built ON TOP of the Engine. A complete product with S3-compatible API, dedup, tiering and dashboard.

What it doesS3 ingestion → Dedup → ML Compression → PQ Encryption → Tiering → Replication
InterfaceS3-compatible API, Native SDK, Dashboard, CLI
Used forReplace/complement enterprise storage (backups, data lakes, archive)
AnalogyThe complete car (engine + chassis + GPS + autopilot)

Relationship between products — the Engine is inside everything

PUCE Storage

uses Engine

PUCE Video

uses Engine

PUCE Streaming

uses Engine

PUCE Conference

uses Engine

PUCE CCTV

uses Engine

PUCE Engine

base technology

2. Backup Orchestrators ≠ Storage

Veeam, Veritas and RMAN are NOT PUCE Storage competitors — they are complementary. They are different stack layers.

Fundamental distinction

Backup orchestrators (Veeam, Veritas, RMAN) decide WHAT, WHEN and WHERE to backup. PUCE Storage is the WHERE — it receives data and protects it with post-quantum encryption. They work together, not against each other.

Orchestrator

Veeam / Veritas / RMAN

Decides: what, when, where

PUCE Engine

Compresses + Encrypts

ML-select + ML-KEM-768

PUCE Storage

Stores with PQ

S3-API + Dedup + Tiering

Veeam

Backup Orchestrator

Scenario C + D

Decides what, when and where to backup. Manages policies, retention and restore.

License:Per-Workload (VUL): $250 – $450/workload/year
PUCE:PUCE Storage as S3 target. Veeam sends backups → PUCE Storage stores with PQ.

Veritas NetBackup

Backup Orchestrator

Scenario A + D

Enterprise backup with MSDP dedup, multi-tier storage, tape library.

License:Front-End TB: $1,200 – $2,575/FETB/year
PUCE:PUCE compress-only pre-backup reduces FETB → direct license savings.

Commvault

Backup Orchestrator

Scenario A + D

Unified data management — backup, archive, disaster recovery, compliance.

License:Front-End TB: $3,847 – $5,282/FETB perpetual
PUCE:Maximum possible savings. PUCE compress-only (70%) → 100 TB billed as 30 TB.

Oracle RMAN

Database Backup Tool

Scenario C

Native Oracle Database backup. Optional compression via ACO ($11,500/core).

License:Per-Core (ACO): $11,500/core + 22% support/year
PUCE:PUCE replaces ACO entirely via SBT_TAPE — eliminates $11,500/core.

3. Integration Scenarios

Where does PUCE Engine enter the client's backup pipeline? 4 possible scenarios, each with different trade-offs.

Scenario A — Compress-Only (Pre-Backup)

PUCE Engine compresses data BEFORE it enters the backup system. No encryption at this stage — backup deduplication continues to work normally.

App/DB
PUCE Compress-Only
Backup System
Dedup (works)
Storage

Advantages

  • Direct FETB license reduction (60-85%)
  • Deduplication preserved
  • Compatible with ANY backup system
  • No deep integration needed

Limitations

  • No PQ encryption on data in transit
  • Classic encryption (AES) on storage — not quantum-safe

Best for: Commvault, Veritas NetBackup, Dell DPS, Rubrik, Cohesity

Critical trade-off: Deduplication vs Encryption

If PUCE encrypts data BEFORE the backup system, deduplication drops to ~0%. Encrypted data appears random — the dedup engine cannot identify duplicates. That's why Scenario D (post-dedup) is ideal when dedup matters.

4. PUCE Storage Real Competitors

The real competitors are object storage systems — not backup orchestrators. None of them offer native post-quantum encryption.

SolutionPQ EncryptionML CompressionDedupS3 APITieringMulti-RegionImmutability
PUCE StoragePosQuantum Security
MinIOOpen-Source Object Storage
AWS S3Cloud Object Storage
Azure Blob StorageCloud Object Storage
Google Cloud StorageCloud Object Storage
WasabiCloud Storage (low cost)
Backblaze B2Cloud Storage (low cost)
NetApp StorageGRIDEnterprise Object Storage
Scality RINGEnterprise Object Storage

MinIO

Open-Source Object Storage

Classic encryption (AES-256). No post-quantum protection. Compression depends on filesystem.

SOC 2HIPAA

PUCE advantage: MinIO uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

AWS S3

Cloud Object Storage

Market leader. AES-256 + SSE-KMS encryption. AWS announced experimental PQ support in TLS (ML-KEM), but does NOT encrypt data at-rest with PQ.

SOC 2ISO 27001HIPAAFedRAMP

PUCE advantage: AWS S3 uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

Azure Blob Storage

Cloud Object Storage

Proprietary API (REST + SDK). AES-256 encryption. No PQ. Automatic tiering (Hot/Cool/Cold/Archive).

SOC 2ISO 27001HIPAA

PUCE advantage: Azure Blob Storage uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

Google Cloud Storage

Cloud Object Storage

Google X implemented PQ in TLS (Chrome + Cloud), but at-rest storage remains classic AES.

SOC 2ISO 27001HIPAA

PUCE advantage: Google Cloud Storage uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

Wasabi

Cloud Storage (low cost)

Flat pricing with no egress fees. No tiering (single price). AES-256 encryption only. S3-compatible.

SOC 2HIPAA

PUCE advantage: Wasabi uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

Backblaze B2

Cloud Storage (low cost)

S3-compatible since 2020. No PQ. No tiering. Good for low-cost archive.

SOC 2

PUCE advantage: Backblaze B2 uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

NetApp StorageGRID

Enterprise Object Storage

On-premise enterprise. Dedup on storage node. AES-256 + KMIP encryption. S3-compatible. No PQ.

SOC 2ISO 27001SEC 17a-4

PUCE advantage: NetApp StorageGRID uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

Scality RING

Enterprise Object Storage

Software-defined, scales to exabytes. S3-compatible. AES-256. Used by telcos and media. No PQ.

SOC 2ISO 27001

PUCE advantage: Scality RING uses classic encryption (AES-256). PUCE Storage offers ML-KEM-768 + AES-256-GCM (FIPS 203) — protection against quantum attacks. Additionally, adaptive ML-select compression outperforms static compression.

5. Practical Use Cases

Real scenarios where PUCE Storage + Engine fit into the client's infrastructure.

Enterprise with Commvault (100 TB)

Challenge

Client pays FETB license on 100 TB. With dedup and native compression, real storage is 30 TB, but the license is on original volume.

PUCE Solution

Scenario A: PUCE Engine compress-only before Commvault. Volume reduced 70% → license charged on 30 TB instead of 100 TB. Scenario D: PUCE Storage as archive tier with post-dedup PQ encryption.

Result

Estimated savings: $315K in licenses + quantum-safe data in archive.

Hospital (HIPAA + NIS2 Data)

Challenge

Sensitive medical data requires strong encryption, audit trail, 10+ year retention, and compliance with increasingly demanding regulations on quantum security.

PUCE Solution

PUCE Storage as primary storage for PACS/RIS backups. ML-KEM-768 at-rest encryption. ML-DSA-65 signature for integrity. Automatic tiering (Hot → Cold → Archive). Configurable retention per bucket.

Result

NIS2/HIPAA compliance + data protected against harvest-now-decrypt-later + 60-75% storage volume reduction.

Bank with Oracle RMAN

Challenge

Oracle backup with ACO (Advanced Compression Option) costs $11,500/core. With 16 cores, that's $184K just in compression licenses + 22% support/year.

PUCE Solution

Scenario C: PUCE Engine via SBT_TAPE replaces ACO entirely. RMAN sends raw blocks → PUCE compresses (ML-select, better than ACO) + encrypts (PQ) + signs. PUCE Storage as final target.

Result

Eliminates ACO license ($184K) + superior compression + PQ encryption + digital signature.

Media Company with Veeam (Multi-site)

Challenge

Veeam charges per workload, not volume — license doesn't change with compression. But they have 500 TB of backups in classic S3, vulnerable to harvest-now-decrypt-later.

PUCE Solution

Scenario C+D: Veeam post-job script → PUCE Engine processes each .vbk/.vib → sends to PUCE Storage. PQ-encrypted data on storage, dedup preserved in Veeam repository.

Result

Quantum-safe backups without changing existing Veeam workflows + storage reduction via ML compression.

Ready to protect your data?

Share your scenario — volume, current backup system, compliance — and we design the ideal architecture with PUCE Storage + Engine.

Request demo View PUCE Storage