If you want unbreakable crypto... One time pad.
and here someone says "but MOOOOOM its hard!"... no it isn't.
How many gigs of communication do you need to secure per device? Lets presume that there are LEVELS of security that can be secured with varying levels of security.
Naturally it is impractical to secure everything with the one time pad type encryption. Which to be clear would be a very large file stored on the sender and receiver and the data being encrypted would use only a portion of that seed data to randomize the information you wanted secured. And any portion of the "pad" that was used would be blacklisted from future use. So what would I use with something like this? Well, how about using the one time pad to encrypt new encryption keys. Thus encrypt/decrypt keys, seeds, etc would be secured by one time pad. Transferring the new pad could be done physically if this is really high security thus bypassing networks that are demonstrably compromised enough that you want to encrypt your data over them.
One time pads are already used by the government for the highest level security. Nuclear launch codes for example are one time pad. A lot of the shoe leather and handshake intelligence networks run on one time pads.
There is no reason we can't translate this even more easily to the digital sphere than it is in the wink and pistol sphere. Let us say you have a file that contains something like 32 gigs of randomized "one time pad" data. Using 1:1 encryption that could encrypt 32 gigs of data you want to secure. And breaking it would be basically impossible. No repeating patterns. You need the one time pad data to decrypt. Period. Look at text messages from cell phones. If we WANT to be efficient with our data transmissions, we can be.
Let us say what we want to do is sync two databases over the internet and the data in these databases is very very sensitive. Now we could use the one time pad data sparingly... passing only some data through that system. Maybe just encrypt/decrypt data for some other encryption scheme. Possibly certain aspects of the data would be encrypted using one time pad. Maybe not all the data being synced has the same security clearance. The point is that if you need to be efficient about it, you can be.
And if you want encryption that can't be broken. One time pad.
Now I assume that isn't what they want. They want some fire and forget, cheap as dirt, flawless, idiot proof system they can slot into the system and stop thinking about this ever again.
That is a fantasy. I don't see that happening.