331 pointsby nolok4 hours ago19 comments
  • embedding-shape3 hours ago
    Seems this traces back almost a week, from Nightmare-Eclipse who is the researcher who found this:

    Tuesday, 12 May 2026 - "Here are the links, yes, two vulnerabilities this time [YellowKey] [GreenPlasma] [...] Next patch tuesday will have a big surprise for you Microsoft"

    Wednesday, 13 May 2026 - "I can't wait when I will be allowed to disclose the full story, I think people will find my crashout very reasonable and it definitely won't be a good look for Microsoft."

    Author's blog: https://deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/

    First post in March 2026 is "[...] someone violated our agreement and left me homeless with nothing. They knew this will happen and they still stabbed me in the back anyways, this is their decision not mine."

    I'm not sure what to make of it, is this someone essentially "leaking" things from the inside? Sure sounds like it, and others are able to reproduce the results.

    • krisbolton3 hours ago
      I read it as the author is / was going through the vulnerability disclosure process with Microsoft and they're annoyed for unclear reasons and decided to publicly disclose, rather than being an insider.
      • mr_mitm2 hours ago
        How would that leave them homeless?
        • allset_2 hours ago
          Presumably, not paying out for these bugs which often take weeks of research to find.
          • mr_mitm2 hours ago
            Who in their right mind bets on bug bounties to cover their basic needs? They should be highly employable with these kind of skills.
            • michaeltan hour ago
              > Who in their right mind bets on bug bounties to cover their basic needs?

              Someone with a vulnerability worth as much as a two bedroom apartment?

            • etchalonan hour ago
              Someone who doesn't have better options?
              • cortesoftan hour ago
                If you have those sorts of skills with a computer, you will have other options
                • 0x3fan hour ago
                  Really depends on your background doesn't it? You could have convictions, be sanctioned, have visa problems, or all kinds of things that are not easily solvable.
                  • qingcharles15 minutes ago
                    Indeed, and this guy's personality seems a little "difficult" which might make the interview process short. I've known people with insane skills who have such weird personalities that they never get hired. Doing remote bug bounty stuff is a blessing for them.
                  • squigz21 minutes ago
                    To say nothing of mental health issues.
                • mfro42 minutes ago
                  Please let me know when finding a job in software engineering in 2026 is feasible for everyone with ‘computer skills’.
                  • echoangle32 minutes ago
                    The guy doesn’t just have „computer skills“ if he found this.
                • GolfPopper14 minutes ago
                  Good with computers and good with people/job search/finances are not the same thing, and are often inversely correlated.
                • MrDarcy21 minutes ago
                  Then you pay him since you see the value he’s creating so clearly.
                • estimator729229 minutes ago
                  [dead]
            • cowpigan hour ago
              people with values different from yours, presumably
              • dparkan hour ago
                This is one it those answers that seems on the surface like it contains insight but on closer inspection it’s vacuous.

                This could be rewritten as “because they aren’t you”, which is true but not a meaningful or educational answer.

                • panflutean hour ago
                  Sure sounds like rhetorical questions or attacking the messenger. Someone can think the bounty industry is going to reward them for actually being exceptional and not look soon enough for other options then pivot to a stance that should give them some quick job offers. If I thought I found an intentional back door I would not engage with an embargo system from the same vendor but I am also not them.
                  • dpark31 minutes ago
                    > Someone can think the bounty industry is going to reward them for actually being exceptional and not look soon enough for other options then pivot to a stance that should give them some quick job offers

                    Sure. And that’s a meaningful answer to the question.

                    “people with values different from yours, presumably” is a condescending nonanswer.

        • 15 minutes ago
          undefined
    • 15 minutes ago
      undefined
    • bri3d6 minutes ago
      Previously discussed numerous times on HN, like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48130519

      Whether this is a backdoor or not boils down to whatever your usual proclivities about "bug or backdoor" are; it's not like "if microsoft = 1 hack bitlocker" like the tech press seem to love to report.

      This is a bug in the NTFS transaction log replay functionality in the Windows Recovery Environment WinRE, where it will read NTFS transaction logs from an external volume and apply them to the mounted filesystem. This allows the attacker to perform an authentication bypass against WinRE. With BitLocker without PIN or Password, _any_ authentication bypass becomes a disk encryption bypass, since the disk is unsealed by the bootloader (this architectural "flaw" is true for Linux with the same configuration, as well, like Ubuntu installed with their newish Hardware Disk Encryption checkbox in the installer).

      In lieu of additional evidence, whether you think the NTFS transaction log issue is a planted backdoor or a simple enumeration bug depends on your conspiracy theory level, like most things in exploit development. To me, it seems like a plausible bug. The weaknesses in boot-time unseal are well known and obvious and this is just one of many, so I don't see it as an earth-shattering revelation, although it is a fun bug.

    • Alifatisk3 hours ago
      Can’t wait to read the blogpost of what have truly happened and motivated this person to expose M$ like this
      • SV_BubbleTime2 hours ago
        Dude. It’s been like 30+ years. You can drop M$. Yes, they exist to make money. They’re shitty and they make money. Yes. That’s ok. Microslop if you must, but must you?
        • supern0vaan hour ago
          I hear you. But, I must also admit that reading "M$" in public discourse sure makes me nostalgic for better days on the internet.
        • enopod_2 hours ago
          Micro$lop it is from now on :)
        • bombcaran hour ago
          From my basement in Wyoming, I stab at thee!
        • pluc2 hours ago
          Yeah man we've been saying negative things about them for like 40 years must we constantly dwell on what they do wrong? It's time we find positive angles
          • treyd2 hours ago
            They keep doing negative things that influence the industry and infringe upon the freedoms of hundreds of millions of people. Yes we should keep dwelling on that.
            • dijitan hour ago
              I read the parent as sarcastic. Since the mentioned the continued negative things they do.
          • Cthulhu_an hour ago
            Positive HN-appropriate angle: they're very financially successful and have been for 40 years.
          • stackghost2 hours ago
            >Yeah man we've been saying negative things about them for like 40 years

            Well gee, I wonder why people have been saying negative things about them for so long?

            Perhaps if it's been that long there's a kernel of truth to the matter.

            Perhaps they're a shitty company who does shitty things selling shitty products.

        • Brian_K_White2 hours ago
          But nothing has changed. It's fair to say it's silly, jeuvenile, but it's also fair to say MS deserve absolutely no normal respect you would pay a turd. Maybe the poster actually is 12 and we all have a right to be 12 for a while. There's always a new generation discovering today what we discovered 30 years ago.
          • naaskingan hour ago
            Nothing has changed? Microsoft is a huge open source contributor now, produced one of the largest open source ecosystems in use (.NET) and provides free access to the biggest open source software repositories (GitHub). Sorry to say, but believing nothing with MS has changed is deranged.
            • edoceo26 minutes ago
              I view it as new paint on same crappy house.

              They had to do the open-source thing for .NET because of external pressure - not because they've changed.

              They had to get GitHub because of the eyeballs. It's not some altruistic play.

              In both cases some VPs spun it around, juked the stats and got their bonus.

              The first E of EEE feels so good makes you forget the inevitable outcome. Like heroin.

            • josefx18 minutes ago
              > produced one of the largest open source ecosystems in use (.NET)

              Are they going to ship an official cross platform UI library any time the next century? Decades after the Java lawsuit they still ship only a crippled copy of their scrapped Microsoft JVM for other platforms.

              > Microsoft is a huge open source contributor now

              Aren't almost all of their contributions for integration with their proprietary technology?

              > Sorry to say, but believing nothing with MS has changed is deranged.

              Yes, they got worse. They maintained Windows XP for ages and you could actually feel the improvements they shipped. Windows 11 meanwhile makes me wait for them to add a robotic arm with a knife as hardware requirement, to improve the backstabbing experience.

            • Brian_K_White26 minutes ago
              Nothing has changed except that it's even worse now than before, and the venue or arena changes every few years (os to developer tools to office to cloud etc). vscode or .net core or whatever you think is so valuable does not make MS your friend any more than giving you free IE did. Come the fuck on. It is beyond ignorant to try to make this argument. (or it's perfectly consistent with having a financial interest)

              I guess if there are always new 20 year olds just discovering something, that must mean there are also always new 15 year olds that haven't discovered it yet, and 80 year olds that have gone Dawkins and lost what they had, and the just plain ignorant or unobservant with no real excuse.

        • nizbitan hour ago
          Micro$lop it is!
        • itsthecourieran hour ago
          • bananamogul4 minutes ago
            He personally still owns 100m shares (per your article) and has not bailed out.

            The B&MG foundation sold their remaining 7.7m shares.

  • layer82 hours ago
    Better writeup: https://infosec.exchange/@wdormann/116565129854382214

    The published exploit doesn’t affect Bitlocker with a PIN, without which Bitlocker isn’t secure anyway. The original author claims they have an exploit that also works with a PIN, but hasn’t provided any proof of that.

    • qingcharles13 minutes ago
      And there is a level above PIN with Bitlocker too, you can have a USB stick with a key on it which you use only during boot. I would imagine that is secure from this attack as the data isn't even stored on the device (I hope).
    • anal_reactoran hour ago
      Assuming that the PIN version claim is true, it's interesting to think why they would've released a nerfed useless version rather than the PIN version. I have some ideas but they're completely baseless.
  • kryogen1c2 hours ago
    From: https://infosec.exchange/@wdormann/116565129854382214

    >In a normal WinRE session, you have a X:\Windows\System32 directory that has a winpeshl.ini file in it

    >However, with the YellowKey exploit, it looks like Transactional NTFS bits on a USB Drive are able to delete the winpeshl.ini file on ANOTHER DRIVE

    Interesting. I dont know about this environment - some kind of naive file handle contructing/passing? But then, why require a key press during winre reboot?

    I wonder how patachable this is. The thousands of winre thumb drives are certainly out of reach; maybe the bitlocker side update the access permissions? Would it require unenc/reenc?

    Seems like lots more to follow

    • gruezan hour ago
      >The thousands of winre thumb drives are certainly out of reach; maybe the bitlocker side update the access permissions? Would it require unenc/reenc?

      The part that isn't mentioned is that the win re is privileged because windows stores a decryption key in the TPM that allows win re to decrypt the disk even without the recovery key. That's why the attack requires win re in the first place, rather than booting into an ubuntu live cd or whatever. This also means you don't have to patch all the winRE thumbdrives out there because their secureboot signatures can simply be revoked, meaning they can't pass TPM validation anymore, therefore they won't be able to decrypt any disks.

      • steve1977an hour ago
        Then I guess it is fair to call this a backdoor indeed.
  • jsmith992 hours ago
    This doesn't sound bitlocker specific, sounds more like a login bypass. If you rely on TPM without PIN then it gets decrypted automatically. This should be fine normally as attackers shouldn't be able to get past login screen. But this exploit shows a way allegedly to get a unrestricted shell in the recovery environment.

    The researcher claims a way to bypass PIN too but hasn't revealed it.

  • markant3 hours ago
    "Security professionals generally recommend avoiding reliance on any single encryption system and instead evaluating well-reviewed full-disk encryption alternatives such as VeraCrypt".

    If they put a backdoor into FDE it would make more sense to advise people to stop using windows at all and using Linux instead. If they put a backdoor in FDE you can be sure there is not just one backdoor in the operating system itself. You shouldn't trust proprietary software at all. You shouldn't even trust open source if it isn't properly audited.

    • tptacek3 hours ago
      I don't use Microsoft products generally but not with even with your computer would I run VeraCrypt.
      • rpdillon2 hours ago
        Curious to see this take from you! I followed TrueCrypt for years, but always thought it was very strange that they were anonymous, and then the mysterious shutdown happened, and I have no idea what to make of VeraCrypt. It's been in my "possibly good, but too many weird flags around the whole project" bucket.

        Anything in particular that makes you wary? I'm aware of the 2016 and 2020 audits (https://ostif.org/the-veracrypt-audit-results/ is the 2016 one, I believe), but those seemed to suggest things were getting better over time. Curious what other signals to look for.

      • cantrevealnamean hour ago
        > not with even with your computer would I run VeraCrypt

        This has got to be the most surprising encryption-related comment I've ever read from you. Please tell us what you're thinking about VeraCrypt. What would you say about TrueCrypt v7.1a, the last known good release?

      • recursivegirth3 hours ago
        Ever since the TrueCrypt fiasco years ago, I have no trust in that brand.
        • rokkamokka2 hours ago
          Fiasco? You mean where they voluntarily shut down rather than compromise themselves? Or are you referring to another matter?
          • michaeltan hour ago
            Presumably when the authors of TrueCrypt declared “Using TrueCrypt is not secure”

            If I trust them to provide my FDE software, I certainly trust them when they say I shouldn’t use it.

            • recursivegirth39 minutes ago
              This. I have no trust in TrueCrypt or it's derivatives. If TrueCrypt was compromised then it stands that VeraCrypt is as well.
        • jazzyjackson2 hours ago
          Is there a brand you do have trust in? I’ve kind of thrown my hands up, considered my attack surface is dude stealing my laptop and not the state department wants my 4chan history, and just use the encryption tools provided by Apple and Microsoft
      • MrZander3 hours ago
        What? Why?
  • seanieb3 hours ago
    At what point will Security professionals start turning down roles that involve “securing” MS Products? I’m already at this point.

    Securing Microsoft products is busy work while waiting to have it undercut by the next wave of MS’s insane tech debt and greed. And now backdoors!

    • lokar2 hours ago
      You are confused. They are not "security" roles, they are compliance roles. That's all most enterprise customers really care about. They satisfied all of the compliance rules, and are following "best practices" (influenced by MS), anything that happens is not their fault.
      • wongarsuan hour ago
        And having more busywork to do is actually a good thing. Having people employed to do said busywork shows how serious they are about "security", without requiring any skills that are difficult to hire
    • microtonal3 hours ago
      As opposed to iOS, which does iCloud backups that are not E2E encrypted by default, so that law enforcement can request your chats (except Signal because they opt out), browser history, etc.?

      You can enable ADP for E2E encrypted backups, but it's probable not going to help you much, because the people you are communicating with likely didn't.

      This is not to defend Microsoft, more to say that all these companies were part of PRISM.

      • gruez3 hours ago
        >You can enable ADP for E2E encrypted backups, but it's probable not going to help you much, because the people you are communicating with likely didn't.

        That just sounds like a fundamental issue with security in general, not specific to Apple/Microsoft.

        • microtonal2 hours ago
          My point is that these defaults that look secure to a non-expert, but do not hold up to scrutiny, are probably intentional.

          I have found that even many tech people have incorrect beliefs about these things, like assuming that iCloud Backups are E2E encrypted by default or that disabling Allow Apps to Request to Track disables trackers inside apps.

      • 2 hours ago
        undefined
      • seanieb3 hours ago
        > This is not to defend Microsoft

        But you are defending MS, conflating a bunch of things, mainly full disk encryption and cloud backups.

        There's a big difference between Apples cloud backup which has documented behavior and a backdoor. I'm also fairly confidant in Apple's full disk encryption, they've gone to court to defend it. There also a lot more data points we can use to judge Apple vs Microsoft on privacy and security, and MS comes out looking bad.

        • microtonal2 hours ago
          I think my message wooshed. I was not comparing disk encryption and iCloud backups. My point is that insecure defaults are Apple and other's alternative to backdoors. They give plausible deniability ("how is someone able to recover their data if they lost their credentials and we used E2E?"), while at the same time satisfying law enforcement, because the vast majority of people is not aware of them.

          Another example is WhatsApp on Android, by default when backups are enabled, they are stored unencrypted in Google Drive. A good counter-example is Signal, which opts out of backups on iOS and Android and the only option is to do E2E backups to their own servers.

          I'm also fairly confidant in Apple's full disk encryption, they've gone to court to defend it.

          FWIW, in the last leaked report, iPhone was not an issue AFU for Cellebrite (macOS is most likely even easier due to looser security):

          https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-ju...

          • Silhouette2 hours ago
            Signal won't let us download our own data and back it up using our own secure systems. Whatever its other merits it gets 0% for backup policy.

            Though I suppose then I have to give a negative % to all the systems that have insecure online backups. This whole area is a train wreck really.

            • curiousObjectan hour ago
              > ‘Signal won't let us download our own data and back it up using our own secure systems.

              Signal is slowly, very slowly, moving toward providing real backups and cross-device transfers

              I understand why you’d believe Signal still can’t deliver that, because they had been ignoring the user demands for years.

              But there is real progress now

              https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/9708267671322-S...

              • Silhouettean hour ago
                It's not a matter of belief. Signal does not provide a way for me to download my own messages off my own devices and safely store them using my own secure backup facility.

                Obviously Signal don't owe me anything. I'm not paying for the product and I appreciate what it does offer and makes available for free. But it would be much better if it also supported local backups under the user's control.

    • yellow_lead2 hours ago
      For enterprise, there seems to be so much money in doing it, that I don't think people are going to start turning it down just because it's troublesome.
    • TacticalCoderan hour ago
      > And now backdoors!

      "now"?

      Shall we have a discussion about the excuse Microsoft gave as to why keys they claimed, back then, were "secondary keys" belonging to Microsoft, were called ..._NSAKEY when a version of Windows NT shipped, by mistake, with debug symbols on?

      One time, just freaking one time, a version of Windows shipped with debug symbols on and, by chance, there had to be cryptographic keys named "NSAKEY" in there.

      Yeah.

      Now that people constantly turning a blind eye on the wrongdoings of the state are of course going to say that it's totally normal and just repeat the, carefully crafted, excuses from Microsoft from back, that it was totally not a backdoor etc.

  • patzentango2 hours ago
    I just digged into the exploit a little bit more and what it does it targets BitLocker in TPM only mode. That means that there is no preboot authentication or anything. What happens is secure boot validates the boot chain and the TPM gives out the encryption keys by itself. When you have physical access, it doesn't really make a difference. If there is a stick you can boot from and drop into an emergency shell or if you have to buy a $5 microcontroller and solder it to certain pins on the main board to sniff the TPM keys. What Microsoft is doing here in general they are selling something that is not secure. They are selling it as as full disk encryption but it's not. Someone who can flash a flash drive with an exploit and drop to a shell and use it to browse and copy files. Can also just buy that microcontroller and watch your YouTube with you How to solder. So the "exploit" isn't The problem here the problem is the false sense of security that Microsoft is selling.
    • gruez2 hours ago
      >If there is a stick you can boot from and drop into an emergency shell

      This won't work because the TPM will only give you the keys if you're booting an "approved" OS, specifically the PCR states that the encryption keys are bound to.

      >or if you have to buy a $5 microcontroller and solder it to certain pins on the main board to sniff the TPM keys.

      That only works with dTPMs. fTPMs aren't vulnerable to this, and are far more popular than dTPMs.

      • bootsmannan hour ago
        fTPMs also have similar issues. The real takeaway is that if your threat model includes actors capable of executing attacks against BitLocker you need to put a password/pin on it in addition to the TPM.

        https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.14717

      • patzentango2 hours ago
        I was talking about the signed recovery shell the article is talking about. Sadly most business laptops still use dtpms. Also if they use ftpms you can simply use a ram scraper. The attack surface is huge either way.
    • kro2 hours ago
      Ubuntu also released TPM based FDE a few versions ago. I had these thoughts then and decided against using it. Typing my passphrase on boot is muscle memory and gives me simple security I can trust.

      Also can recover data without my mainboard.

      Maybe a hybrid (secureboot-TPM+phrase) slot for day to day to also prevent against evil maid attacks, and another slot with a backup passphrase would be acceptable.

      • gruez2 hours ago
        >Typing my passphrase on boot is muscle memory and gives me simple security I can trust.

        It's not an either-or. You can combine TPM with passwords which makes it far more secure than password alone. A TPM can enforce password guessing limits, otherwise a password needs to be absurdly long to be secure against GPU bruteforcing attacks. It also prevents someone from swapping out the bootloader with a backdoored version that steals your passwords.

        >Also can recover data without my mainboard.

        You're supposed to keep a backup of the encryption key when using TPM, in case it fails.

        • kroan hour ago
          Sounds good - which software supports this? Specifically I'd prefer if it would do a composite key derivation in-time rather than "just a pw prompt but TPM has the full key"
    • dataflow2 hours ago
      They claim they have TPM + PIN exploit too, though how credible it is remains to be seen.

      https://deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/2026/05/were-doing-silen...

  • 2 hours ago
    undefined
  • motohagiographyan hour ago
    The real problem with a Bitlocker backdoor or weakness is that when a laptop gets stolen or lost, in most regulated organizations, the criteria for legally declaring and disclosing a breach pivots on whether it was protected by disk encryption.

    If it's a backdoor, that's a serious fraud against their customers.

    • bigyabai26 minutes ago
      This doesn't make much sense. Almost every single organization using Bitlocker knows that it's backdoored. It's like Push Notifications or SMS, warrantless surveillance is the norm and you don't get to opt-out. Nobody's IT department is waking up in cold sweats at the idea of the Fed stealing their data, it's part and parcel with using Windows services.

      If you really think this will be prosecuted as fraud, then you'll be shocked by how American courts handle these sorts of things.

  • BLKNSLVR3 hours ago
    Title sounds conspiratorial, but it lines up well with the controversy around TrueCrypt's discontinuation which, I believe, specifically called out BitLocker as an alternative to use in future.
    • ekjhgkejhgk3 hours ago
      I'm not aware of the connection between truecrypt and bitlocker, want to enlighten us?
      • akersten3 hours ago
        Long time ago TrueCrypt suddenly and abruptly shut down with a vague goodbye message saying "everyone please move on and use bitlocker instead"

        Prevailing theory is they were pressured to put in a backdoor and couldn't disclose it, so they had to make a seemingly ridiculous statement (because who in their right mind would trust bitlocker) to call attention that "something is very wrong"

        • gruezan hour ago
          >so they had to make a seemingly ridiculous statement (because who in their right mind would trust bitlocker) to call attention that "something is very wrong"

          Alternately, they don't want people to rely on abandonware for security.

          Also, despite the conspiracy theories of backdoors I'm not aware of any bitlocker exploits that work on TPM + pin, which is the intended "secure" configuration[1]. All exploits rely on TPM-only (ie. ez-mode), which is basically the security equivalent of running https/ssh without certificates and blindly accepting whatever keys shows up.

          [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating...

          • cubefoxan hour ago
            Why do you need a separate PIN anyway? Shouldn't your Windows password be enough? Having to enter two different codes makes it unlikely a majority would use the system. I would be surprised if iOS or Android required a separate PIN for encryption.
            • bootsmannan hour ago
              You need a separate pin because windows lives on the encrypted disk so you need to decrypt it before you can boot completely.
              • rafram29 minutes ago
                macOS solved this (and a lot of other problems) by putting the OS on a separate read-only partition - technically an APFS volume - that doesn’t get encrypted. Microsoft’s backwards-compatibility obsession might not let them make that the default, but they could at least make it an option.
        • dist-epochan hour ago
          seems like nobody here knows the history

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux

    • otakucode3 hours ago
      That was my immediate first thought. "Oh, is Bitlocker Not Safe Anymore?"
    • alamortsubite3 hours ago
      You're probably thinking of VeraCrypt, which is a fork of TrueCrypt. I don't think BitLocker is related.
  • mschuster912 hours ago
    > The vulnerability may also work without a USB drive if the FsTx files are copied to the Windows EFI partition and the encrypted disk is temporarily disconnected from the system. After placing the FsTx folder, an attacker would need to reboot a BitLocker-protected machine, enter the Windows Recovery Environment, and follow a specific sequence of inputs.

    At the point where you're able to mount the EFI partition and effectively modifying the bootloader, it's game over anyway - just run `manage-bde -unlock`, you already have to be root to mount the EFI partition.

  • zb32 hours ago
    This doesn't surprise me at all. Microsoft is a Chinese company and Chinese companies have to work with the government on such matters. Oh sorry, I meant an US company, whatever..
    • dborehaman hour ago
      Another way to look at this is that Microsoft, Google, Apple, et al are in the business of providing products and services to regular people, for a low cost. This means they end up providing ways to escrow keys, recover locked accounts and so on that are weak. Not because they want to provide back doors for TLAs but because to provide strong security would be so expensive they couldn't meet the price point for regular customers. If, for example, MS only provided disk encryption that relied on a smart card or a memorized strong passphrase at boot/wake, they'd go out of business providing support to people who forgot their passphrase and being sued by people who lost their data.
  • superkuh3 hours ago
    As long as Microsoft will continue to use dark patterns to convert local accounts to online accounts and automatically, without user consent, encrypt the storage drives preventing any computer use until the user goes to aka.ms and through the hoops, this is a good thing.

    No one should have their data encrypted and kept from them without consent unless they do something. Microsoft does that now. They may not be requring a monetary ransom like others, but it is a ransom nevertheless.

    I know this is controversial. Bitlocker helps protect one's property and information when used intentionally. And that being impacted is a shame.

    • whycome3 hours ago
      The nagging to upgrade is insane. Even the 'dismissal' option is a dark pattern still designed to make you click the wrong thing
    • mynameisvlad3 hours ago
      You only need to use the aka.ms link if you lost your recovery key. That feature also can be disabled without disabling Bitlocker as a whole.
      • superkuh3 hours ago
        How would a user that never set it up in the first place have a recovery key? I honestly am asking and don't know.

        I recently (last week) had to drive over to a parent's house and "fix" their (pre-online accounts) win 11 computer used for sewing because it had become a blue screen saying aka.ms was required. They did not know how it happened and are not very technical users so I imagine they were tricked by some click-through dialog. It is not something they would ever do intentionally. All that computer ever does is run sewing pattern/control software.

        • mynameisvlad3 hours ago
          The non-cloud methods for recovering the key have been the same since Bitlocker was released 19 years ago.

          https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/find-your-bitloc...

          • superkuh3 hours ago
            I think there's been some miscommunication. If the bitlocker activation happens during tricking the user into going from a local account to online account, it is without the user's consent or real participation. They haven't printed out a copy of the key or moved it to a usb drive. They aren't aware their drives are being encrypted. They can't set up recovery keys now because the computer itself only shows the blue aka.ms screen. None of those 2/4 options are applicable.

            There other 2 options are enterprise or online account (the very thing we're talking about) don't apply in this context.

            • mynameisvlad3 hours ago
              You can set up recovery keys at any point in time, not just at creation. Just because people don't do it doesn't mean it isn't and hasn't been available for almost 2 decades.
              • Silhouette2 hours ago
                And presumably the instructions for this have been on display on our local planning department in Alpha Centauri? If a user isn't even aware that their local disk is being encrypted without their knowledge or consent then why would they think to set up recovery keys?
  • m3kw92 hours ago
    That should be the fastest way to make them patch it.
  • archerx3 hours ago
    Maybe I’m an outlier but I don’t want my drives encrypted at all. I rather have all my data be accessible if things go catastrophic, I.E. having to pull the drive out of a broken computer and put it in another computer to access the files. I just want it to be plug and play.
    • Glohrischi3 hours ago
      My harddrives (laptop, work laptop, desktop, server) contain emails, browser sessions, saved passwords, personal data from family and friends.

      I do not want someone stealing my laptop on a train ride potentially being able to have all of that data.

      With a proper real backup strategy, i have everything save. I do not need easy access to a hard drive from a broken computer.

      But hey you do you :)

      • xingped3 hours ago
        Cool. Everyone's threat model is different. As long as we're not writing passwords on sticky notes attached to the monitor, I don't think there's any need to be throwing stones.
        • pyralean hour ago
          > Everyone's threat model is different.

          Everyone's threat model is different, but some are better than others, and maybe we shouldn't equate taking time to explain why with throwing stones.

        • lachiflippi2 hours ago
          Sensitive data written down on a sticky note is arguably more secure than that same data sitting on an unencrypted hard drive, at least in a home setting.
        • Glohrischi2 hours ago
          I did not throw a stone, i only clarified my counter position for others to understand why I encrypt.
        • brookst3 hours ago
          Hey now, I use rot13 on my sticky notes.
          • loneboat3 hours ago
            Gotta bump that encryption up - rot26 is twice as secure.
            • harshreality2 hours ago
              Secure rot* variants require UTF-8 and mappings that shift characters between {1,2,3,4}-byte encoded-character-sizes. That varies the message length, which prevents any message-length or traffic analysis.

              The Snowden leaks revealed that the NSA is flummoxed on how to tackle variable character lengths. However, they've cracked rot26 using custom ASIC supercomputers, so it should be considered insecure even though it's twice as good as rot13.

      • NBJack3 hours ago
        Are you saying you bring your desktop on a train ride as well? Laptops with encryption make sense; if you need to encrypt your desktop, I have questions.
        • rpdillon2 hours ago
          My inference machine is the only drive I leave unencrypted, but that's because it has the models on it, llama.cpp, and nothing else, and I want it back up and running services after a power-failure. My other desktops are encrypted to make hard drive disposal easy.
        • Glohrischi2 hours ago
          I have one safety concept for everything and not random ones for random devices.

          Every machine is encrypted, unlocked per login.

          Encryption is basically free so.

        • The_President3 hours ago
          Simple hypothetical: "A disaster hits and the workstation owner is unable to return to the location the workstation is stored. During that time period the workstation is stolen by a gang of looters."
          • treis3 hours ago
            Ah yes a typical Tuesday for me
          • cindyllm2 hours ago
            [dead]
        • msh3 hours ago
          Burglars are a thing.
          • JoshTriplett3 hours ago
            Also a reason to have off-site backups. Many people have done backups to local servers, only to discover that they have no way to recover their data because thieves stole everything.
      • archerx2 hours ago
        My data is mundane and mostly my art projects and photography. I don’t believe I am important or interesting enough for someone to do anything with my data if they somehow managed to get it also I don’t have emails, saved passwords, banking info or that kind of sensitive info on my computers so meh I guess.
    • hiq3 hours ago
      If "things go catastrophic" your hard drive is not usable at all anymore. At the very least some files can't be recovered at all. So you need backups in any case. Once you have backups, you might as well encrypt your hard drives, especially if you store these in different locations (which you should).

      An advantage of encryption is that it makes it easier to give away or resell devices. With recent encryption schemes (well the ones on Linux, given this article), I feel confident that overwriting the encryption keys gets me close enough to not leaking my data once I get rid of an old hard drive.

      • archerx2 hours ago
        That’s not true. I’ve had many computers that refuse to turn on and I was able to recover the files by removing the drive and loading it into a USB hard drive reader and recover the files.
        • hiq37 minutes ago
          I sure envy you if this qualifies as "catastrophic", because hard drive can and do fail.
    • The_President3 hours ago
      Additional problem is if physical access is obtained, illegal material could be covertly added to the drive then picked up by the built in scanners in your OS. Depends on how important you are.
    • mordae2 hours ago
      That's called LUKS2 and it's the default on Linux. You just type passphrase on boot. It's not tied to the motherboard.
      • archerx2 hours ago
        What if you forget the passphrase after not using it for many years and you suddenly need a file on the drive?
        • slashdave2 hours ago
          Print it on a piece of paper and put it in a lock box.
          • Terr_an hour ago
            Better still: LUKS allows you to set up multiple entry keys, so use two, either of which will grant access to the drive.

            * Your preferred memorized passphrase and will never be written down anywhere.

            * A random key you can print and store in a box somewhere.

            Then if your backup paper gets lost, you can revoke/replace it without having to abandoned your memorized favorite.

            • slashdavean hour ago
              Yep. You can also put your key on a usb drive that can be read on boot.

              Just choose a good quality one....

              • Terr_37 minutes ago
                A few ideas for extra security:

                * Split the recovery key in two, store each half with a different friend. (If you're feeling fancy, XOR the halves and store that with a third friend, then any two out of three will work.)

                * Sneak the key into something you know friends/family won't throw away while you're still alive, like stuck to the back of a sentimental photo in a frame.

                ____

                That said, I think I'm wandering from the original "accumulating dusty old drives in a box" scenario, which has a simpler solution: Keep a growing old_drives_keys.txt file on your current (encrypted) main device.

          • nickjjan hour ago
            Yep, this is the way. It survives human memory and doesn't depend on software.

            If you keep it in a dark environment that's not super humid the ink should last a really long time. Even in non-optimal conditions (NY summers with high humidity, etc.) I've had regular pen ink last for decades with no signs of fading away.

    • deng2 hours ago
      But it's also plug&play for anyone stealing your laptop, see for instance

      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39941021

    • rpdillon2 hours ago
      I was happy to give up my side-hobby of drilling drives after FDE became standard everywhere. Plug and play is great, but you don't want it to be plug and play for whoever pulls your drive out of the trash.
    • skeledrew3 hours ago
      Same here. If anything happens I want a decent chance to be able to recover my data. The most I may do is create encrypted files, and some of them I've forgotten the passwords for, which makes me even more wary.
    • jsmith992 hours ago
      So long as you've backed up the key you can fairly easily decrypt on any machine.
    • lstodd3 hours ago
      What's not plug and play if using some sensible fde like idk, dm-crypt? You are only a passphrase away from mounting that drive in any other system you plug it into.
      • pessimizer2 hours ago
        That's my question, because my root is encrypted, I move encrypted disks all the time, and have a couple of encrypted external drives. It's trivial.

        But I'm sure that some of the millions of things that I've missed as windows has become what it has become makes this simplicity seem like a scifi absurdity. I don't think that they can even log into their own computers without asking Microsoft for permission over the network. I'm sure the idea of encryption must have been overcomplicated to the point of absurdity in order to trap customers too, I just don't know about it.

        I suppose you should just count your blessings (of ignorance) and be available to help your friends with cryptsetup if they decide to flee windows.

    • tekne3 hours ago
      I mean... you can use an encryption scheme compatible with this (if you know the password).

      I suppose this makes some sense for home computers (burglars and police raids are rare) but for a laptop, you really don't want thieves getting all your details.

      Ironically -- this probably was paranoid a few years ago, but now -- "ChatGPT, use this prepared prompt to extract all useful info from this hard drive"

    • aniceperson3 hours ago
      the point is having a choice and the choice actually doing what it claimed.
  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • pessimizer2 hours ago
    > Security professionals generally recommend avoiding reliance on any single encryption system and instead evaluating well-reviewed full-disk encryption alternatives such as VeraCrypt.

    What does this even mean? Nobody is using multiple encryption schemes on top of each other, are they?

    • dborehaman hour ago
      I've heard this before, so what I think it means is this:

      If you want to encrypt some data that gets stored persistently somewhere on your machine, rather than invent an application-specific encryption scheme for that data alone, instead use a mainstream full-partition encryption mechanism, then store the data as plaintext within said partition.

  • pixel_popping2 hours ago
    Well I doubt anyone would be surprised with a backdoor in MS product, there have been many of them already, I frankly doubt anyone with "disk encryption" on Windows would think that it's NSA-proof (or script-kiddy clever, as shown in this article :))