Customer Testimonials

"Great customer service. The folks at Novedge were super helpful in navigating a somewhat complicated order including software upgrades and serial numbers in various stages of inactivity. They were friendly and helpful throughout the process.."

Ruben Ruckmark

"Quick & very helpful. We have been using Novedge for years and are very happy with their quick service when we need to make a purchase and excellent support resolving any issues."

Will Woodson

"Scott is the best. He reminds me about subscriptions dates, guides me in the correct direction for updates. He always responds promptly to me. He is literally the reason I continue to work with Novedge and will do so in the future."

Edward Mchugh

"Calvin Lok is “the man”. After my purchase of Sketchup 2021, he called me and provided step-by-step instructions to ease me through difficulties I was having with the setup of my new software."

Mike Borzage

End-to-End Encryption for CAD/PLM: Protecting Design IP in Cloud Workflows

December 23, 2025 13 min read

Why CAD/PLM Needs End-to-End Encryption Now

The risk landscape for design IP

Modern engineering pipelines concentrate extraordinary amounts of proprietary value in digital artifacts that were never designed to live on multi-tenant clouds. As CAD and PLM systems shift to SaaS, the threat surface expands from the traditional perimeter to a mesh of identities, devices, and vendors with varying levels of privilege. The most damaging risks often sit inside the trust boundary: over-privileged administrators, misconfigured service roles, silent data processing plugins, or a compromised sync client that silently siphons confidential assemblies overnight. Even when network transport is encrypted, the provider often retains plaintext access for indexing, preview rendering, or workflow automation. That’s precisely where **end-to-end encryption (E2EE)** changes the economics of attack—taking plaintext away from the cloud while preserving collaborative function at the edge. Engineers also underestimate the specificity of what attackers seek. They don’t need entire repositories to cause harm; a single PMI-rich STEP file, **MBD annotations**, a **CAM toolpath**, solver decks for a composite layup, or a manufacturing **BOM** with costed alternates can reveal secrets of tolerance strategies, supplier dependencies, and intellectual property boundaries. Add regulatory pressures—**ITAR/EAR**, export controls, and strict residency rules—and the stakes move from financial to criminal and civil liability.

Cloud/SaaS insider threats and admin overreach that bypass traditional logging.
Supply-chain compromise via build plugins, preview renderers, or third-party integrations.
Targeted exfiltration of assemblies, PMI/MBD, CAM, simulation decks, BOMs, and review comments.
Regulatory exposure spanning ITAR/EAR, deemed exports, and cross-border data residency.

By forcing encryption decisions to occur at the client, **E2EE** makes the cloud a blind courier, sharply reducing breach blast radius and compliance ambiguity.

Security goals and constraints specific to engineering workflows

Engineering collaboration imposes unique constraints on cryptographic design. The data is multimodal (parametric solids, meshes, PMI, simulation results, toolpaths) and massive, the editing is frequently real-time and multi-user, and the graph of sharing crosses corporate boundaries and time zones. Security properties cannot be aspirational checkboxes; they must map to the lived reality of version churn, supplier onboarding, and legal discovery. At a minimum, systems should deliver **confidentiality**, **integrity**, **authenticity**, and **forward secrecy**, along with rapid **revocation** that aligns with operational events like device loss or contractor offboarding. Crucially, auditability must not require the provider to view plaintext; otherwise the cloud becomes both the tool and the liability surface.

Confidentiality via object-centric keys; integrity via **authenticated encryption (AEAD)** and robust hash chaining.
Authenticity using per-user signing keys so edit provenance survives server compromise.
Forward secrecy with ephemeral session keys to limit the damage from key capture.
Revocation that cleanly severs future access without rewriting petabytes of history.

These guarantees must coexist with the interactive needs of design: **massive assemblies**, partial loads, lightweight visualization, and **cross-organization sharing** without brittle VPNs. Audit and legal hold must be achievable through **verifiable logs** and escrowed key fragments rather than provider-side plaintext indexing. In short, the right model gives security teams provable guarantees while giving engineers latency budgets they can work with.

Threat model and assumptions

The credible adversaries in modern CAD/PLM are not hypothetical. Assume a network attacker capable of intercepting or delaying traffic, a malicious or coerced service operator with access to infrastructure keys and debug tooling, and collaborator endpoints ranging from hardened workstations to unmanaged contractor laptops. Treat any server-side process with plaintext access as vulnerable to abuse or lawful compulsion. Therefore, the trust anchors must move toward the enterprise and the device: **enterprise identity** (SAML/OIDC), **hardware roots of trust** (TPM, Secure Enclave, YubiKey), and **verifiable, append-only logs** that let you prove whether an action happened and by whom, independent of the hosting provider’s assertions.

Adversaries: network attackers; malicious or coerced cloud operators; compromised collaborator endpoints.
Trust anchors: IdP-verified human and service identities; device-bound keys tied to TPM/Secure Enclave; transparency logs for non-repudiation.
Assumptions: servers are honest-but-curious at best; clients enforce policy; keys remain tenant-owned and auditable.

By defining this **zero-plaintext** threat posture, design choices follow naturally: encrypt at the edge, minimize trusted compute on servers, and prove everything important with signatures and logs. When the model is explicit, exception handling—break-glass, legal holds, export filters—becomes a policy exercise backed by cryptographic evidence rather than a scramble through admin consoles after an incident.

Cryptographic Architecture Patterns for CAD/PLM

Object-centric envelope encryption

Object-centric envelope encryption treats every CAD/PLM artifact—parts, assemblies, versions, markups, derived meshes, simulation decks—as a first-class cryptographic object. Each asset version receives its own data encryption key (DEK), while tenant-scoped key encryption keys (KEKs) protect those DEKs. For large assemblies and derived outputs, use chunk-level encryption to allow parallelism, partial loads, and range requests while maintaining **AEAD** integrity tags per chunk. Keys are organized hierarchically, enabling controlled derivation across product structures: a parent assembly can delegate scoped access to sub-assemblies without revealing siblings or historical variants. This reduces key sprawl and aligns with bill-of-materials reasoning.

Per-asset/per-version DEKs wrapped by tenant KEKs; no shared monolithic key.
Hierarchical derivation to map product structures into least-privilege key grants.
Chunked AEAD for big models: parallel decrypt, resilient to partial corruption.

Authenticity rides alongside confidentiality. Every edit operation—feature change, parameter tweak, PMI addition—can be signed with the editor’s private key. Storage adopts immutable, **hash-addressed blobs** so that content identity is verifiable without seeing plaintext; the client computes and proofs the hash on ciphertext, while metadata carries the necessary nonces and tags. Provenance becomes a chain: content hash, editor signature, and time anchored in a transparency log. This design turns servers into efficient couriers of opaque objects and proofs, while clients enforce visibility via **object-centric keys** and signatures.

Identity, keys, and recovery

At E2EE scale, identity is the new perimeter. Integrate tightly with the enterprise IdP using **SAML/OIDC** for authentication and **SCIM** for lifecycle events so that joiners, movers, and leavers trigger precise key workflows. Bind private keys to trusted hardware—**TPM**, **Secure Enclave**, or **YubiKey**—to deter exfiltration and enable on-device attestations that a real, uncompromised device performed a signature. Tenants should bring their own keys (**BYOK**) or, for high sensitivity, hold their own keys (**HYOK**) via an HSM under their control; the SaaS platform should never hold KEKs in a way that allows plaintext access without tenant participation.

HSM-backed tenant master keys with rotation policies measured in weeks, not years.
Split-key recovery using Shamir or threshold schemes to avoid a single-point custodian.
Per-team group keys and ephemeral session keys that map to fine-grained permissions.

Recovery is where many designs break. Plan for lost tokens, device re-provisioning, and mergers. Use threshold recovery where multiple, auditable custodians must concur, producing a time-locked release trail in a transparency log. Automate safe rotation: rewrap DEKs under new KEKs without re-encrypting payloads, and propagate updated grants through the hierarchy. The result is a **key management** strategy that tracks organizational reality while keeping **tenant sovereignty** intact.

Collaboration and sharing

The hardest problem in E2EE CAD is co-editing without turning the server into a trusted editor. The answer is to bring collaboration math to the edge. Use **CRDTs** or **OT** where each user signs their operations with a device-bound key. The server sequences ciphertext operations, and clients perform conflict resolution locally, verifying signatures and message ordering against **verifiable logs**. Because operations are on ciphertext streams tied to object versions, you retain causality while keeping plaintext on endpoints.

E2EE co-editing with signed operations; the server coordinates but cannot forge edits.
Cross-company handoff via **proxy re-encryption** or **attribute-based encryption (ABE)** to avoid bulk re-encrypt when adding a supplier.
Time-bounded shares that embed **watermark tags** and policy claims—no-export, no screen capture—enforced by the client.

When sharing beyond the org, prefer cryptographic delegation. Proxy re-encryption allows the server to transform a ciphertext from one recipient to another without learning the plaintext, ideal for supplier onboarding or RFP workflows. Add time bounds and embedded watermark identifiers tied to identity claims so that forensics can attribute leaks. Client policy engines should govern rendering pipelines—disallow STL export, cap tessellation detail, or lock print—without ever granting raw key material beyond the authorized scope. That’s collaboration on your terms, enforced cryptographically.

Compute and search on protected data

Search and heavy compute are the canonical arguments against E2EE. The practical pattern is to push as much as possible to the client and constrain what the server ever sees. Build **client-side indexing** for file names, tags, and even approximate geometry features; leverage **blind indices** for limited server-assisted search while understanding leakage tradeoffs. For heavy jobs—meshing, simulation prechecks, or format conversions—use **trusted execution environments (TEEs)** such as SGX, SEV, or TDX with **remote attestation** so that clients only release ephemeral keys to attested workloads. Keep plaintext windows minimal, avoid persistent storage inside the enclave, and record attestation evidence in verifiable logs.

Client-side semantic search and thumbnails from local caches; server sees only encrypted manifests.
TEEs for bursty compute with short-lived keys and auditable attestations.
Homomorphic and multiparty computation used sparingly for niche analytics, not full geometry.

Fully **homomorphic encryption** and general-purpose **MPC** remain impractical for interactive CAD geometry due to performance and complexity. They do, however, fit selective analytics: aggregate supplier lead times, anonymized defect rates, or encrypted similarity search on derived features. By combining client-side search, TEEs with measured trust, and conservative leakage controls, you enable useful computation without ceding the crown jewels.

Streaming and storage nuances

Geometry wants to stream: large assemblies should open progressively, and reviewers should orbit a model before the last bolt is fetched. Use range-friendly, chunked encryption so HTTP range requests map cleanly to ciphertext boundaries. Each chunk carries nonces and **AEAD** tags so partial corruption is detected early. Be cautious with deduplication: convergent encryption exposes equality across tenants and can leak structure; if you must dedupe, do so within tenant boundaries and add salts to reduce cross-object linkage.

Chunked, range-addressable encryption with per-chunk integrity.
Tenant-scoped dedup only; understand **convergent encryption** privacy risks.
End-to-end verified visualization over **WebRTC/WebTransport** with client-side policy enforcement.

For real-time visualization, establish **end-to-end verified transport** where peers authenticate using enterprise identity and ephemeral keys, and where the rendering client enforces policies on tessellation density, texture export, and screenshot suppression. Servers relay encrypted streams but never unwrap them. This preserves the fluid UX engineers expect while maintaining a **zero-plaintext** core.

Making E2EE Work in PLM Operations

Performance and UX

Security that drags is security that dies in a helpdesk queue. The design target is simple: E2EE should add milliseconds, not seconds. Exploit parallelism—decrypt multiple chunks at once, pipeline I/O and crypto, and lean on **AES-NI** and **ARMv8** crypto instructions. Where available, use GPU kernels for parallelizable primitives like AES-GCM or ChaCha20-Poly1305. On the wire, delta-sync only the changed leaves of the assembly graph so that small edits don’t trigger large transfers. At rest, pre-compute ciphertext thumbnails and lightweight proxies so viewer sessions start instantly.

Storage overhead target: +5–15% from nonces, tags, and manifests.
Open/save latency overhead: +50–200 ms typical; avoid multi-second stalls via pipelining.
Live-edit roundtrip goal: <50 ms for common operations with local-first buffers.

Offline matters. Implement an **offline-first cache** that holds encrypted chunks and the least privilege keys needed for the active projects, with proactive **key eviction** when projects close or devices idle. Re-auth should be silent but provable—device attests again, session keys roll, and policy updates apply—without forcing engineers to re-login mid-edit. When devices change (new laptop, replaced motherboard), trigger a **seamless re-key** that rewraps user grants and session tokens without re-encrypting entire vaults. Done right, engineers barely notice the crypto while security teams see the metrics.

Data modeling and interoperability

Encryption pressures schemas. The trick is to separate what must be searchable by the server from what can remain opaque. Model metadata as a split schema: a minimal set of server-visible fields (object type, tenant, coarse project) that leak as little as possible, and an encrypted metadata envelope holding sensitive tags, classifications, and cross-references. Use carefully designed **searchable tags**—hash-salted or bloom-filter based—to enable limited queries without revealing raw labels. Under the hood, maintain deterministic hashes of ciphertext to preserve lineage and enable dedup within tenant boundaries without exposing plaintext fingerprints.

Split metadata with minimal server-visible fields; everything sensitive travels encrypted.
Deterministic hashing to anchor version lineage, not to leak content.
Standards alignment: STEP AP242/PLM XML, 3MF, glTF wrapped or with sidecar key manifests.

Interoperability is non-negotiable in PLM. Keep the payload formats standard but carry cryptographic context in **sidecar manifests**: which keys protect which chunks, which algorithms are in play, which policy claims apply. For STEP AP242 and PLM XML, embed references to encrypted parts and attach policy-bound decryption grants. For 3MF and glTF, wrap assets inside encrypted containers or link encrypted external buffers with per-chunk nonces. This preserves vendor compatibility while upgrading the security model—no custom binary silos required.

Governance, compliance, and audits

E2EE is only as strong as the policy engine that drives it. Codify export control, residency, and retention rules as key grants, not as after-the-fact checks. If a design is ITAR-controlled, the system should simply not issue usable decryption grants to non-US identities or devices lacking compliant attestation, eliminating the enforcement gap. Residency becomes a key-scoping property: keys for EU-resident projects never leave EU-controlled HSMs. Lifecycle retention can be enforced by time-bound keys that expire into archive states, with legal holds pausing key rotation for specific objects.

Policy engine translates regulatory rules into cryptographic grants and device attestations.
Append-only **transparency trees** record hashes and signatures, not content, for durable audits.
Legal hold/break-glass via threshold authorization and time-locked releases; revocation with verifiable evidence.

Audits should verify behaviors rather than trust screenshots. Use append-only logs (Merkle-based transparency trees) to record who requested which decryption, from which device attestation, and under which policy at what time. For break-glass, require multi-party approval through threshold cryptography; publish a cryptographic receipt to the audit log so that exceptions are both rare and provable. When revocation hits, demonstrate effect by showing the absence of future decryption receipts for the revoked identity coupled with refusal proofs by the key service.

Incident response, backup, and monitoring

Incidents are inevitable; the goal is to contain quickly with cryptographic boundaries. On a suspected device compromise, immediately rotate session keys, revoke device-bound grants, and rely on **forward secrecy** to ensure captured traffic remains unreadable. Where wide re-encryption would be expensive, apply **lazy re-encryption**: rewrap DEKs under new KEKs and only re-encrypt chunks when they are next touched, recording this migration in the transparency log. Forward secrecy boundaries should be explicit in the design so responders know what past data remains safe.

Rapid containment: session rekey, device grant revocation, and attestation invalidation.
Encrypted backups with independent key custody and tested, survivable restore paths.
Privacy-preserving telemetry and endpoint DLP; client-side forensic watermarks in shared renders.

Backups must remain E2EE: store encrypted payloads and encrypted key manifests, with backup KEKs held by a separate custodian or cloud to avoid correlated compromise. Practice disaster recovery with sealed-secrets drills: can you restore without the SaaS provider? Monitoring should respect privacy—collect integrity signals, performance metrics, and policy events, not content. For leak deterrence, embed **forensic watermarks** into visualizations and documents at the client; verify them client-side post-incident to attribute exposure without giving servers plaintext.

Deployment patterns and migration

There is no single path from legacy PLM to E2EE-native operations. Many organizations start with **SaaS E2EE** for the viewer and markup flows while running **on-prem key guardians** or **hybrid edge gateways** that hold tenant KEKs and enforce device attestation. This reduces risk for the highest-volume access path—reviewing—and buys time to modernize authoring tools. As authoring vendors add E2EE-aware co-editing, you can progressively relocate keys from gateways into device-bound storage.

Phased rollout: viewer-only E2EE → controlled co-editing → supplier ecosystem onboarding.
Change management: key hygiene training, hardware key distribution, and clear support playbooks.
Legacy coexistence: bridge vaults with proxy re-encryption and strict policy fences.

Plan migrations as product releases, not IT projects. Start with sensitive programs, measure overhead and collaboration latency, and publish the numbers. Distribute **hardware keys** at onboarding, script device enrollment with attestation, and offer white-glove support for the first teams. For partner onboarding, use time-bounded, watermarked shares and monitor mean time-to-share under E2EE to keep procurement and quality engaged. The destination is a steady state where plaintext is the exception, not the rule.

Conclusion

End-to-end encryption can protect high-value design IP without sacrificing collaboration

The convergence of SaaS, global supply chains, and high-stakes regulation makes design data the most tempting—and fragile—target in the enterprise. The classical fixes fail because they trust the wrong locus: the cloud. By moving protection to the endpoints with **end-to-end encryption**, **object-centric keys**, and device-bound identity, we remove plaintext from provider reach while sustaining the collaboration tempo engineers require. E2EE-aware co-editing built on signed CRDT/OT operations preserves authorship and conflict resolution without elevating the server into a trusted editor. Immutable, hash-addressed storage and **verifiable logs** replace screenshots and admin promises with proofs. With careful attention to chunked AEAD, hierarchical key derivation, and policy-bound rendering, the practical system meets stringent goals—confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, forward secrecy, and revocation—without reducing the PLM lifecycle to a compliance chore. The outcome is not perfect secrecy but a far tighter, auditable perimeter where the cloud becomes a fast courier and the enterprise retains the keys to its competitive future.

Pragmatic path forward

Big-bang replacements rarely succeed; measured progress does. Start where risk concentrates and value is obvious, then expand through proven playbooks that vendors and teams can adopt without friction. Codify cryptography and identity early so every subsequent workflow inherits the posture rather than custom-patching controls on the fly.

Begin with the most sensitive programs and viewer-only flows; instrument and publish overhead and share-latency metrics.
Standardize sidecar key manifests and audit formats; integrate IdP and HSMs before migrating authoring workflows.
Onboard suppliers using **proxy re-encryption** and **time-bounded, watermarked** shares to minimize re-encrypt churn and improve traceability.
Automate revocation, rotation, and recovery; make exceptions rare, fast, and provable through threshold approvals.

These steps build institutional muscle while demonstrating that E2EE can be both safe and fast—a foundation for vendor ecosystems to plug into without improvising cryptography.

Know the tradeoffs

Strong security changes the workflow in visible ways. With E2EE, some server-side convenience disappears: plaintext search across all content, unrestricted server-rendered previews, and silent admin access are either curtailed or moved into **TEEs** with auditable boundaries. Metadata leakage remains a live issue; split schemas and blind indices help, but they don’t erase all patterns. TEE trust requires continuous validation: firmware measurement baselines, revocation lists, and independent attestation verification. Server-side compute on plaintext is limited by design; adopting client-first or enclave-mediated patterns is an engineering and product effort, not just an IT switch.

Metadata leakage is managed, not eliminated; design schemas accordingly.
TEE trust is conditional on strong **remote attestation** and vendor transparency.
Break-glass, revocation, and export control must be explicit policies backed by cryptographic workflows.

Facing these tradeoffs openly avoids disillusionment later. The goal is not perfection; it is a quantifiable, enforceable reduction in risk that still lets teams build, review, and ship.

Call to action

Security gains compound when they are shared. The CAD/PLM community should not build twenty incompatible E2EE stacks; it should rally around open profiles, independent audits, and measurable outcomes. Vendors that embrace **open E2EE profiles for STEP/PLM** and invest in public cryptographic reviews will earn the trust needed for supplier networks to participate without fear.

Push for open E2EE profiles for STEP AP242, PLM XML, 3MF, and glTF with sidecar key manifests and transparency log schemas.
Fund independent cryptographic audits of client code, key services, and TEE pipelines; publish findings and fix timelines.
Establish operational metrics: revocation success rate, mean time-to-share under E2EE, performance budget adherence, and audit proof coverage.
Create community test corpora and red-team exercises focused on convergent encryption risks, TEE bypasses, and metadata leakage.

Design IP is too valuable to entrust to hopeful configurations. By standardizing on **end-to-end encryption**, grounding identity in hardware-backed keys, and making co-editing cryptographically accountable, we can collaborate at full speed without leaving the crown jewels where anyone—including our own providers—can see them.