2 ms·

You're wrong on both counts. Even back in 2007, NIST deemed 1024-bit RSA too weak: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-57/sp800-57-Part1-revised2_M

by Niten 16y ago

You're wrong on both counts. Even back in 2007, NIST deemed 1024-bit RSA too weak: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-57/sp800-57-Part1-revised2_Mar08-2007.pdf http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-57/sp800-57-P... And BitLocker's trusted boot path does defend against the evil maid attack: http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-do-i-miss-microsoft-bitlocker.html http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-do-i-miss... Even if you want to make some semantic argument that this doesn't strictly fall under the mantle of "disk encryption", it still proves the point that FileVault is no substitute for BitLocker.

tptacek 16y ago
I'm wrong on neither count. The likelihood that anyone's disk encryption is going to be broken by a brute force attack on an RSA key of any size is nil. There remain attacks on Bitlocker regardless of whether it boots from a static trusted root. And, again: the whole notion of "evil maid" attacks does miss the point of disk encryption; if you lose control of your computer, it's no longer trustworthy no matter what.