The Systematic Removal of Security in Consumer Operating Systems(sk500.online)
5 pointsby airhangerf154 hours ago2 comments
  • rbanffy4 hours ago
    On the HFS+ side, you should probably not be using HFS+ anymore. Not supporting encrypted file systems is one way to reduce the maintenance cost of keeping a file system before phasing it out definitely. It’s nice they do that in phases at least.

    For more or less similar reasons you are not supposed to use ext2 or ReiserFS on Linux (you can, with enough determination), and I think both of these are much newer than HFS+.

  • MisterTea3 hours ago
    > is support being dropped because the previous filesystem had strong encryption?

    This statement seems to imply that APFS encryption is less secure than HFS+ encryption and no further evidence is given.

    • airhangerf152 hours ago
      Is asking a question implying? The author also suggests it could be legit tech debt at the end. The Apple/HFS thing is reaching, but the Nightmare Eclipse (BitLocker)/TrueCrypt stuff is weird.

      Was the VeraCrypt/Wireguard situation simply a "paperwork" issue? Even if it is, doesn't that mean the bar is now crazy difficult for any other open source developers to get encrypted filesystem or new VPN drivers into Windows?