What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
94 Comments
- hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21BitLocker is not enabled by default
- blanski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Ok people don't being with Windows bashing just yet. I don't even know why this crappy article got to the front page since it has a whole three sentences dedicated to the subject, but anyways.
First off, this technology is a GOOD thing. It encrypts the content of YOUR hardrive so OTHER people can't see it. If you can't see how this is useful stop reading now and go play with your iLife.
On it preventing dual-boot: it is only an assumption made by the guy quoted on this article.
1) I doubt BitLocker is enabled by default as it would be an extra complication for the usual clueless computer user.
2) You could disable it if you wanted to dual-boot.
3) It will probably encrypt volumes and not entire disks.
And finally,
4) Have we all not learned that someone will always find a way around it if its something that DOES prevent dualbooting? - omegaworks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Its actually not that hard to access Linux partitions from windows - there are various utilities that have implemented ReiserFS and ext2/3 read access using the Windows driver API.
http://rfsd.sourceforge.net/
http://yareg.akucom.de/
http://ext2fsd.sourceforge.net/
http://www.fs-driver.org/ - blanski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I SERIOUSLY doubt third-party vendors will enable it. Most third-party vendors sell their computers to clueless users who would be incredibly confused by encryption.
Not only that it will probably make it more difficult to troubleshoot their thousands of machines. - traherom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Even assuming that there is _no_ way around the encryption and there's no way to turn it off, this doesn't actually prevent you from dual booting, it just keeps you from accessing the data. Slightly misleading title... Personally, I wouldn't even care; I've only actually accessed the NTFS partition on my compy once from Linux.
- sappyvcv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10cecil: Ok, if you need to share data... THEN DON'T ENABLE BITLOCKER.
- Deusiah, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17I currently dual boot, WinXP only for the occasional gaming I do when Cedega has problems with game X. If it comes down to a choice between Windows and Linux, MS have just lost another user.
- hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8They are not fighting linux (it has absolutely nothing to do with it anyway) they are offering a nice thechnology that will protect your data if you want it to be protected
- doowttam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Its not intended to prevent dual-booting. Its hardware encryption to protect your data, even if your computer was stolen. So, it would follow that it could make it difficult to dual-boot.
- zootm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"IQ70, did you read the article? The concern is sharing data between Linux and Windows, not whether it will boot or not. The digg title and summary were a little confusing in that regard but the article mentions no problems of actually booting Linux.
"And yes, Bruce Schneier absolutely is an expert on security."
Although your assertions there are correct, I find Schneier's conclusions somewhere between silly and ridiculous. If you enable a technology to encrypt the contents of your drive, you should *expect* it not to work on another OS. If it did, the encryption would be worthless.
It's not on by default, and this is a lot of fuss over absolutely nothing, in my view. Ah well. - hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6let me quote dioscaido
"You've got to be kidding me guys.
This is an ENCRYPTION tool! You think an encryption tool should allow other OS' on the same machine to read the data unencrypted? Then what's the point of encrypting?
Seriosuly... this is reaching..." - IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can boot your Apple hardware with XP because MS made the OS compatible with that hardware.
You cannot boot your Apple software with Dell hardware because Apple made the OS incompatible with that hardware.
It is Apple stopping you from using hardware that is not made by them. - halc5s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is hilarious :) MS delivers a security feature and people are up in arms about not being able to dual-boot. If Linux did this, the same fanboys would be slamming MS for not being as secure.
BitLocker is a great feature. Enable it, buy a 2nd hard drive (160GB for $50 at tigerdirect last I looked) and put your linux distro on the 2nd drive. Security and dual boot. - lemieuski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think this is moot... Most people using BitLocker are going to be business pros.... The last time I checked we don't allow dual booting in our work environment... no need for it. So if this is your personal computer, then keep your stuff safe your own way and be free with your dual booting, live in happiness. If not, then use it!
People bash M$ for making windows not as secure as it could be, and they bash it when they try to secure it. - hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11users want features and when they get them, they start bashing it with inaccurate information
ITS FRIGGING OPTIONAL AND NOT ENABLED BY DEFAULT - Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It looks like the comment needs to be stated again. Bitlocker was NOT created to prevent you from using Linux any more than it was created to prevent you from running it in tandem with OSX. If you encrypt your Windows volume today, you'll have exactly the same issues - this is just a good security item for Windows. If the Windows volume is secure then any other operating system you boot will have to bypass or crack that security before you could access the encrypted area. Linux wouldn't be affected, but trying to mount your Windows partition under Linux would.
Can somebody explain to me why Microsoft uses the words "hardware-based encryption" to refer to.....encryption implemented fully in their software? Are the actual keys for the encryption based somehow upon the hardware found within the system - just like the way they examine the system to see if Windows has been validated on this hardware? - Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14I've used the 5308 beta of Vista.
Someone needs to tell Microsoft that just because they've got 16 million colours to play with, they *don't need to have them all on screen at the same time!*
The UI for Vista is wrong in sooooo many ways. - cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6IQ70, did you read the article? The concern is sharing data between Linux and Windows, not whether it will boot or not. The digg title and summary were a little confusing in that regard but the article mentions no problems of actually booting Linux.
And yes, Bruce Schneier absolutely is an expert on security. - IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@cecil
The article says, I quote, "This encryption technology also has the effect of frustrating the exchange of data needed in a dual boot system."
Exchange of data, after boot? Well, one could read linux data from Vista easily using any of the opensource softwares. Reading bitlocker encrypted data from linux will NOT be possible because that is what its function is. Even then, this 'expert' is 50% wrong. - keaka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5*comment moved to correct location*
I wish Digg would remember which comment you were replying to after it redirects you to the login page. - flashmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why couldn't you just dual boot with two different hard drives? GRUB lets you do that, and since Vista wouldn't be installed on both, there wouldn't be encryption on the Linux'd drive. Possibly...
- Chozabu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5getting into my linux partitions form windows is easy, download ext2ifs (assuming ive got the name correct)
ext2 (and ext3) are open spec file systems - MS could easily integrate them into windows
NTFS however, is very not open spec - writing to it from any OS other than windows is a bitch, or it was when i alst tried 6 months ago - Jorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yet more proof that most Digg posters think this is SlashDot and don't bother to RTFA.
BitLocker will have NO effect on dual-booting unless you choose to turn it on. The same thing is true with XP Pro today, if you turn on EFS, you will not be reading those files from another OS.
Ignorance is cureable. Read the article before opening your mouth and maybe you won't stick your foot in it.
Jorgie - neomorphic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5From the Microsoft website:(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/library/c61f2a12-8ae6-4957-b031-97b4d762cf31.mspx)
'This helps protect your data from theft or unauthorized viewing by encrypting the entire Windows volume'
Suggesting that only the windows volume is encrypted and therefore dual boot should not be a problem, unless you want to use the same volumes under both windows and *nix, in which case don't encrypt the shared space. - waynejkruse10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I am quite happy with XP so far. And i agree with pbromberg that there is a awful lot of OS specific bashing going on here.
I have no real view on vista at the moment. I think it could turn out great, or not so great, time will tell. - hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4YOU and only YOU will lock the drive with BitLocker not vista
- Inhibit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Is that true for the final release as well? (Out of curiosity, I don't keep up with Windows)
- raykart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Bad article, very misleading. Wish I could " -digg " this.
For one I am looking forward to better encryption. Gives you a peace of mind knowing that your data is safe even if your computer gets physically stolen. - GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7so you have judged the functionality of a browser by screenshots? Geez, Didnt your mom tell you not to judge a book by its cover. Dear God if i did what you just did, i probally would have never started using linux, Because lets face it sometimes Linux isnt the most attractive thing either.
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yea but will third party vendors enable is on preloaded machines?
- pbromberg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Boy we sure have some Windows-Bashers readiing Digg. My main worry is whether Vista will be any better than Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP which I happen to be very happy with.
- adjustedrace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Who cares. Linux is inferior to Windows. The simplicity of Windows and the security of Windows Vista will far out weigh Linux. There is so much more software available for Windows that Linux doesn't stand a chance against Vista and to me it doesn't really matter. If you dual boot Linux/Windows Vista who really cares apart from "Pro Linux M$ bashers"? All I care about is that my system is secure and Windows Vista delivers that and it delivers a much better looking GUI than Linux or Mac OSX. I've been using Microsoft software since the dos days and it always improves. Windows Vista is going to be something really special and I look forward to seeing the end result and no I am not a Microsoft Evangilist!!!
Windows ownz. - dhan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@keaka
What does iLife has to do with FileVault ?
And encryption is available since Win2k and is more flexible than filevault on Mac. BitLocker is different and suposedly better. (more secure ? I don't know...hardly care about encryption) - spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"VIsta" shouldn't that be "Vista"?
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Two hard drives don't work in most laptops. But it's not needed because Windows will only encrypt the Windows volume, so you can still boot the Linux partition. The concern is shared data, to which I say just use a USB thumb drive with TrueCrypt - accessible from both Windows and Linux and still secure.
- dioscaido, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You've got to be kidding me guys.
This is an ENCRYPTION tool! You think an encryption tool should allow other OS' on the same machine to read the data unencrypted? Then what's the point of encrypting?
Seriosuly... this is reaching... - dioscaido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@antoniojvr: What purpose does it serve? Are you serious?
Say you are the CEO of a company. You need to store confidential company documents on your laptop. Or say you are a developer, and you want to bring the source code for your super secret new application along during your trip. What happens if your laptop is stolen? You are screwed.
Enter Bitlocker (and any other encryption tool). Put in a small USB key into the laptop, encrypt the drive with your confidential information, and the decryption key is stored in the USB key. Now you can leave your laptop in your hotel room (taking the usb key with you) without fear (well, other than losing the hardware). - Brodan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When your a home user, it's easy to upgrade. what do you have to lose, a few saved games?
But If you run a Business and you are worried about downtime and the learning curve of employees, cost of errors. Loss of customers. together with compatibility issues with older programs.
It will be 2 years, after the initial release, before most businesses begin to install Vista. So that will be almost 2008?
Apples OS X will have had 2 upgrades by then Vista will already be out dated.
so any discussions now are mote, with little impact on reality. - mikm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Funny how MS is trying so hard to maintain exclusivity as operating system in the computer and apple explicitly allows you to dual boot with their major competitor. Who is afraid and who isn't?"
That's because Apple sells hardware. Apple has nothing to lose by people using Windows on their boxes. In fact, it has everything to gain. If Mr. X loves OSX, but has some app he needs for work / is a gamer, he could buy an Apple computer and use BootCamp to load Windows only when necessary; Apple gains another customer.
Microsoft, on the other hand, sells software. If they made something like BootCamp, they could lose money - a person might find that he likes Linux better. He doesn't buy more Microsoft products and Microsoft loses money. - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It can use TPM, if the hardware supports it, for encryption.
- jivemasta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, this is how it is useful if you don't dualbooting. Say you have bitlocker enabled. And say you have a strong password on your administrator account. Somebody could come up to the computer, use a live linux cd and get files onto a thumb drive, plus get into the registry/password files and decrypt your password. But with bit locker, everything is encrypted. They would have to crack the decryption to just get to the files. I'm not saying that this encryption that bitlocker is uncrackable, but it will be more secure than nothing.
Oh and I don't think this would fall under anti-competetion, because most linux distros are free. They can't compete if they are giving it away. - waynejkruse10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yeah, i think i will probably get it when it comes out
- hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3they just have to ignore bitlocker then
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's a great reason for using encryption.
- dioscaido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@msgyrd: You haven't run or even looked into Vista much, but that won't stop you from saying how much more awesome the alternatives are? I'm not saying they aren't, but this is the definition of a fanboy.
In the interim between XP and Vista, MS released server 2003, which is actually a massive step forward in security, and is making huge inroads in the server market. How many vulns has IIS 6 had? How has the OS compared to previous MS server offerings wrt vulns? These are verifiable numbers through secunia, I'm not making this up.
Now comes Vista... It is built on the Win2k3 codebase, and in the years since Win2k3 release MS has evolved their security review practices to an amazing degree. I don't agree with all the decisions they've made, but with Vista we'll get a client OS that is even more secure than Win2k3. Just because of that, if you are stuck in the windows world, Vista will be worth running. - Inhibit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yea, the author was ref'ing the fact that you won't be able to access the partitions that have been encrypted even with the proper authentication, I believe. But I wasn't entirely sure. Which is why I posted it to digg.
And hey, now I've got an entire reem of links illuminating the issues involved. Looks pretty good to me :). - keaka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@blanski: "It encrypts the content of YOUR hardrive so OTHER people can't see it. If you can't see how this is useful stop reading now and go play with your iLife."
If people are using iLife, then they probably have already been encrypting their data with FileVault. FileVault has been a feature of Mac OS X since October 2003. - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sorry, should really give a reference to what TPM is in case you're unfamiliar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module - pigdart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Zephiron, I can kind of sing.
- msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The reason linux users get bent out of shape about Microsoft is because MS usually goes *out of their way* to make it difficult for other software vendors to interact with their systems. Standards are never sufficient for MS, some proprietary DRM scheme has to be tossed in, or a standard document format wont work because they won't have any way to force corporate customers to upgrade again. In this case, people assumed that MS was going out of their way to make repartitioning their harddrives impossible, locking in Windows to a computer. Apparently thats not the case, but it's still annoying that it's a plausible action from MS (one they've probably considered) and that if they decided to move forward with the idea, its possible that they could enforce it on OEM installs because of their deals they offer.
Again, I'm not sure why this dual booting issue was raised (it certainly isn't part of BitLocker), but the zealots come out of the woodwork anytime something implies Microsoft and Linux in the same thought. -
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is