18 ms·

Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

1040 points by bookofjoe 10mo ago

bigyabai 10mo ago
Quid pro quo.
- advisedwang 10mo ago
  What quid pro quo? Is there an allegation that the FBI gave Microsoft something in exchange? As far as I can see this particular case is a straightforward search warrant. A court absolutely has the power to compel Microsoft to hand over the keys. The bigger question is why Microsoft has the recovery feature at all. But honestly I believe Microsoft cares so little about privacy and security that they would do it just to end the "help customers who lose their key" support tickets, with no shady government deal required. I'd want to see something more than speculation to convince me otherwise.
londons_explore 10mo ago
> The case involved several people suspected of fraud related to the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program If it were preventing a mass murder I might feel differently... But this is protecting the money supply (and indirectly the governments control). Not a reason to violate privacy IMO, especially when at the time this was done these people were only suspected of fraud, not convicted.
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  They had a warrant. That's enough. Nobody at Microsoft is going to be willing to go to jail for contempt to protect fraudsters grifting off of the public taxpayer. Would you?
  - beeflet 10mo ago
    Yes. Businesses have a moral responsibility to honor their agreements with their stakeholders above the government.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  > Not a reason to violate privacy IMO, especially when at the time this was done these people were only suspected of fraud, not convicted. Well you can't really wait until the conviction to collect evidence in a criminal trial. There are several stages that law enforcement must go through to get a warrant like this. The police didn't literally phone up Microsoft and ask for the keys to someone's laptop on a hunch. They had to have already confiscated the laptop, which means they had to have collected enough early evidence to prove suspicion and get a judge to sign off and so on.
cogman10 10mo ago
> Microsoft told Forbes that the company sometimes provides BitLocker recovery keys to authorities, having received an average of 20 such requests per year. At least they are honest about it, but a good reason to switch over to linux. Particularly if you travel. If microsoft is giving these keys out to the US government, they are almost certainly giving them to all other governments that request them.
- TrainedMonkey 10mo ago
  All other governments is a stretch here, but likelihood of at least one another government getting same privileges is extremely high.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  It's not like companies have a choice. If they have a key in their possession and law enforcement gets an order for it, they have to provide it.
  - function_seven 10mo ago
    That only strengthens the parent point. Switch to an OS where this requirement doesn't come into play if you're worried about any governments having a backdoor into your own machine.
    - charcircuit 10mo ago
      If you sync your Linux machines key in the cloud, police could subpoena it too. The solution is not to switch to Linux, but to stop storing it in plain text in the cloud.
      - NewsaHackO 10mo ago
        Do you know what a private key means in this context?
        10mo ago
Aurornis 10mo ago
FYI BitLocker is on by default in Windows 11. The defaults will also upload the BitLocker key to a Microsoft Account if available. This is why the FBI can compel Microsoft to provide the keys. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that the suspect didn't even know they had an encrypted laptop. Journalists love the "Microsoft gave" framing because it makes Microsoft sound like they're handing these out because they like the cops, but that's not how it works. If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. This makes the privacy purists angry, but in my opinion it's the reasonable default for the average computer user. It protects their data in the event that someone steals the laptop, but still allows them to recover their own data later from the hard drive. Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account.
- whalesalad 10mo ago
  Any power users should avoid Windows entirely.
  - bigyabai 10mo ago
    If by "power user" you mean "enemy of the state", there's a lot of software you'd be better-off avoiding.
    - phanimahesh 10mo ago
      That is a strange viewpoint. Are we calling everyone who wants some control over their computers enemies of the state?
      - bigyabai 10mo ago
        It's holistic philosophy. You're not going to save yourself from FBI surveillance by avoiding Windows, I guarantee that to you.
        10mo ago
tucnak 10mo ago
Water is wet. More news at 11
- yndoendo 10mo ago
  Water is not wet. Water makes non-hydrophobic materials wet. This news piece from a non-tech organization will help educate non-tech people.
tokyobreakfast 10mo ago
This is almost certainly users who elect to store their BitLocker keys in OneDrive. Don't think Apple wouldn't do the same. If you don't want other people to have access to your keys, don't give your keys to other people.
- parineum 10mo ago
  Both Microsoft and Apple (I think Apple does) have the option to encrypt those keys with the user's password where they are storing them.
- malfist 10mo ago
  It is the default setting on windows 11 to share your key with microsoft.
  - raverbashing 10mo ago
    It's also the "default" in Windows 11 to require a recovery bitlocker key every time you do a minor modification to the "bios" like changing the boot order
- giobox 10mo ago
  > Don't think Apple wouldn't do the same. Of course Apple offers a similar feature. I know lots of people here are going to argue you should never share the key with a third party, but if Apple and Microsoft didn't offer key escrow they would be inundated with requests from ordinary users to unlock computers they have lost the key for. The average user does not understand the security model and is rarely going to store a recovery key at all, let alone safely. > https://support.apple.com/en-om/guide/mac-help/mh35881/mac https://support.apple.com/en-om/guide/mac-help/mh35881/mac Apple will escrow the key to allow decryption of the drive with your iCloud account if you want, much like Microsoft will optionally escrow your BitLocker drive encryption key with the equivalent Microsoft account feature. If I recall correctly it's the default option for FileVault on a new Mac too.
  - tokyobreakfast 10mo ago
Jigsy 10mo ago
This is by far one of the best advertisements for LUKS/VeraCrypt I've ever seen.
- jhallenworld 10mo ago
  Agree, use Linux, use LUKS. PGP WDE was a preferred corporate solution, but now you have to trust Broadcom.
- Coeur 10mo ago
  Remember when the original dev of TrueCrypt (the VeraCrypt predecessor) suddenly abandoned the project and wrote that people should use BitLocker instead? [1] [2] We now know that BitLocker is not secure, and an intelligent open source dev saying that was probably knowingly not saying the truth. The best explanation to me is that this was said under duress, because somebody wanted people to move away from the good TrueCrypt to something they could break. [1] https://truecrypt.sourceforge.net https://truecrypt.sourceforge.net [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#End_of_life_announcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#End_of_life_announce...
  - 93po 10mo ago
    alternatively, they knew truecrypt/veracrypt to be irrepairably compromised, and while bitlocker may be backdoored in the same way, it is at least maintained
- debazel 10mo ago
  Sadly VeraCrypt is not optimized for SSDs and has a massive performance impact compared to Bitlocker for full disk encryption because the SSD doesn't know what space is used/free with VeraCrypt.
  - Dwedit 10mo ago
    VeraCrypt can be set to pass through TRIM. It just makes it really obvious which sectors are unused within your encrypted partition (they read back as 00 bytes)
dmitrygr 10mo ago
This is why local account setup is so important on windows, and why microsoft makes it harder and harder each update.
- paulpauper 10mo ago
  or not use microsoft products for encryption
  - direwolf20 10mo ago
    or not use microsoft products
SilverElfin 10mo ago
This is disappointing but I wonder if this is quid pro quo. Microsoft and Nadella want to appear to be cooperating with the government, so they are given more government contracts and so they don’t get regulatory problems (like on antitrust or whatever).
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
ferrouswheel 10mo ago
It's interesting how many comments these days are like, "well of course". Back in the day hackernews had some fire and resistance. Too many tech workers decided to rollover for the government and that's why we are in this mess now. This isn't an argument about law, it's about designing secure systems. And lazy engineers build lazy key escrow the government can exploit.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  > Back in the day hackernews had some fire and resistance. Most of the comments are fire and resistance, but they commonly take ragebait and run with the assumptions built-in to clickbait headlines. > Too many tech workers decided to rollover for the government and that's why we are in this mess now. I take it you've never worked at a company when law enforcement comes knocking for data? The internet tough guy fantasy where you boldly refuse to provide the data doesn't last very long when you realize that it just means you're going to be crushed by the law and they're getting the data anyway.
  - nemomarx 10mo ago
    If you design it so you don't have access to the data, what can they do? I'm sure there's some cryptographic way to avoid Microsoft having direct access to the keys here.
    - t-3 10mo ago
      If you design it so you don't have access to the data, how do you make money? Microsoft (and every other corporation) wants your data. They don't want to be a responsible custodian of your data, they want to sell it and use it for advertising and maintaining good relationships with governments around the world.
      - NegativeK 10mo ago
        > If you design it so you don't have access to the data, how do you make money? The same way companies used to make money, before they started bulk harvesting of data and forcing ads into products that we're _already_ _paying_ _for_? I wish people would have integrity instead of squeezing out every little bit of profit from us they can.
aeternum 10mo ago
Not your keys not your {thing}
observationist 10mo ago
Hear that? It's the sound of the year of the Linux desktop. It's time - it's never been easier, and there's nothing you'll miss about Windows.
- tombert 10mo ago
  I've been trying to get my parents to move, but until Microsoft Office desktop is able to be run natively on there my parents won't entertain the subject. I've tried to get them to use the web version of office, I've tried to get them to use OnlyOffice and LibreOffice, I've even tried showing them LaTeX as a last ditch effort, but no, if it isn't true Microsoft Branded Office 2024, the topic isn't even worth discussing [1]. I'm sure there are technical reasons why Wine can't run Office 2024, and I am certainly not trying to criticize the wine developers at all, but until I can show Wine running full-fat MS Office, my parents will always "miss" Windows. To be clear, I hate MS Office. I do not miss it on Linux. I'm pretty sure my parents could get by just fine with LibreOffice or OnlyOffice or Google Docs, but they won't hear it. I've also tried to get them to use macOS, since that does have a full-fat MS Office, I've even offered to buy them Macbooks so they can't claim it's "too expensive", and they still won't hear it. I love my parents but they can be stubborn. [1] Before you accuse me of pushing for "developer UI", LaTeX was not something I led with. I tried the more "normy-friendly" options first.
  - rz2k 10mo ago
    I use macOS most of the time, but switch to a Windows VM for Excel. Without the same keyboard shortcuts, the macOS version ends up having a fraction of the power available to experienced users of the Windows version. For people who use Excel extensively, LibreOffice or Google Sheets would have to offer some remarkable new killer features to make it worth the switch. I don’t think feature parity alone would make the benefits of Linux outweigh the significant transition costs.
    - tombert 10mo ago
      I mean, I think not having Copilot being shoved at you and not having advertisements pushed on you and having recovery tools that actually work and basically a lifetime of free updates would be a pretty big value add for Linux over Windows, and those go beyond feature parity.
g947o 10mo ago
So, forcing user to connect to Internet and log in to Microsoft account has more to do than tracking you and selling ads -- Microsoft may be intentionally helping law enforcement unlocking your computer -- and that's not a conspiracy.
ChrisArchitect 10mo ago
[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46731694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46731694
motoboi 10mo ago
A more honest title would be: judge order Microsoft to hand over bitlocker keys to FBI.
axus 10mo ago
Here's a story about what the FBI may do when they don't unlock the laptop: https://cointelegraph.com/news/fbi-cant-be-blamed-for-wiping-hard-drive-with-345m-bitcoin-say-judges https://cointelegraph.com/news/fbi-cant-be-blamed-for-wiping... Perhaps next time, an agent will copy the data, wipe the drive, and say they couldn't decrypt it. 10 years ago agents were charged for diverting a suspect's Bitcoin, I feel like the current leadership will demand a cut.
- Dilettante_ 10mo ago
  This is my biggest fear wrt gov't search-and-seizure. I know the police won't be able to get at my juicy encypted bits, but I also know they're vindictive basterds who'll be held to no accountability. Of course they'll wipe my drives just to get revenge for me "winning" by having blocked their access.
  - swordsith 10mo ago
    backups backups backups. give one to your grandma she wont crack the encrypt
alexfromapex 10mo ago
I don't know how many bad things Microsoft has to do before consumers realize they are a terrible company and you should stop buying their stuff.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
uriegas 10mo ago
The problems of centralization. Some economic sectors are centralized by nature, IT is not.
kittikitti 10mo ago
[flagged]
MattSteelblade 10mo ago
Based on the comments in the thread, I sense I will be in the minority, but for most consumers this is a reasonable default. Broadly speaking, the threat model most users are concerned with doesn't account for their government. The previous default is no encryption at rest, which doesn't protect from the most common threats, like theft or tampering. With BitLocker on, a new risk for users is created: loss of access to their data because they don't have their recovery key. You are never forced to keep your recovery keys in Microsoft's servers and it's not a default for corporate users.
- nancyminusone 10mo ago
  I'll always remember - when I was first learning about it, one of the interesting counter-arguments to ignoring privacy was "what if the Nazis come back, would you want them to have your data?". I suppose there's some debate these days, but hostile governments seem a lot closer than they were 10-15 years ago. Will this make people care? Probably not, but you never know.
  - burnt-resistor 10mo ago
    "Closer"? They're already here. Trusting corporations or governments is inherently moronic.
    - pessimizer 10mo ago
      Even in the best of times. Why widen your attack surface unnecessarily? Do you tell people your passwords and PINs at parties? What governments and corporations (and plenty of bad actors in the FOSS world) have done is make this the default; made it easy to mindlessly hand people your privacy without even knowing. Opt-out, if you know the setting exists, and can find it.
- Avamander 10mo ago
  It's certainly a reasonable default. People lose or have their laptops stolen much more often than they get targeted by their governments. Though that doesn't mean Microsoft couldn't implement a way of storing these keys so that they can't be accessed by Microsoft. Still better than nothing though.
t1234s 10mo ago
If you use a local windows account does it still upload your bitlocker key to M$?
- masfuerte 10mo ago
  No, and by default the keys are stored on the disk so it's not actually secure. If you open the BitLocker control panel applet your drive(s) will be labelled as "Bitlocker waiting for activation".
  - mmmlinux 10mo ago
    Oh? Do tell how to retrieve those insecure keys. I have an old laptop I would love to get access to again.
    - masfuerte 10mo ago
      There was a great blog post a few years ago that reverse engineered the on-disk data structures and demonstrated extracting the key. Of course, I can't find it now. Microsoft themselves [1] say: > If a device uses only local accounts, then it remains unprotected even though the data is encrypted. There is a further condition: if you explicitly enable bitlocker then the key is no longer stored on the disk and it is secure. When I run "manage-bde -status" on my laptop it says "Key Protectors: None found". If the TPM was being used that would be listed. Have you tried plugging the disk or ssd from your old laptop into another computer? [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating...
diego_moita 10mo ago
This isn't even about Microsoft or BitLocker. This is about the U.S.A.: anyone who thrusts the rule of law in the U.S. is a fool. Yes, the American government retrieves these keys "legally". But so what? The American courts won't protect foreigners, even if they are heads of state or dictators. The American government routinely frees criminals (the ones that donate to Republicans) and persecutes lawful citizens (the ones that cause trouble to Republicans). The "rule of law" in the U.S. is a farce. And this is not just about the U.S. Under the "five eyes" agreement, the governments of Canada, UK, Autralia and New Zealand could also grab your secrets. Never trust the United States. We live in dangerous times. Ignore it at your own risk.
gethly 10mo ago
it's like microsoft has nothing better to do other than keep digging the hole to burry windows as mainstay operating system deeper and deeper with every new day.
AmazingTurtle 10mo ago
I have opted out of all cloud services in my windows installation; I use a passphrase, too (it is even before booting the computer). I feel like this is pretty safe
- knowitnone3 10mo ago
  except MS could easily turn something on without you knowing and be uploading your files to their cloud. Yes, I believe they would stoop that low and even lower.
  - EasyMark 10mo ago
    or just save all your keystrokes and regular screen captures with "Recall"
mmooss 10mo ago
> Johns Hopkins professor and cryptography expert Matthew Green raised the potential scenario where malicious hackers compromise Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure — something that has happened several times in recent years — and get access to these recovery keys. Bitlocker isn't serious security. What is the easiest solution for non-technical users? Does FDE duplicate Bitlocker's funcationality?
estimator7292 10mo ago
My Linux drives are all encrypted, and one of the wonderful features of this is that there is no entity or force on this planet that can decrypt them. What happens if I forget my keys? Same thing that happens if my computer gets struck by a meteor. New drive, new key, restore contents from backups. It's simple, secure, set-and-forget, and absolutely nobody but me and your favored deity have any idea what's on my drives. Microsoft and the USGov don't have any business having access to my files, and it's completely theoretically impossible for them to gain access within the next few decades. Don't use Windows. Use a secure operating system. Windows is not security for you, it's security for a hostile authoritarian government.
- deejaaymac 10mo ago
  I wish there was more people like you and me. Privacy is not a crime.
  - NegativeK 10mo ago
    I wish people didn't have to be like us to have privacy.
- tombert 10mo ago
  Yeah, if the drive can be encrypted by an external party that you didn't give permission, I'm not sure how it's really "encryption" other than burning cycles when doing writes.
- digiown 10mo ago
  It's a good start, but FDE alone is still fairly easy to compromise in many cases. If you ever type the password under a camera, it may be leaked. If the device ever leaves your possession and you don't have secure boot, your bootloader can be trivially altered to leak the password. Then there are keyloggers. And cold boot attacks can often be done if your system is running.
  - aqme28 10mo ago
    And finally-- there are other more "traditional" ways to get people to divulge their keys.
exabrial 10mo ago
The US Government has quickly realized the utility of monopolies and no longer goes after them.
mawise 10mo ago
I consider myself pretty pro-privacy, but there is so much dragnet surveillance and legitimate breaches of the fourth amendment that I have a hard time getting up in arms over a company complying with a valid search warrant that is scoped to three hard drives (and which required law enforcement to have physical possession of the drives to begin with). This is so much more reasonable than (for example) all the EU chat control efforts that would let law enforcement ctrl+f on any so-called private message in the EU.
- EasyMark 10mo ago
  A lot of them are not really legitimate though. There's a reason that 4th amendment needs a modern version to require a warrant for tapping of any sort for things people generally assume are private. Flock, palantir, etc need to all go bankrupt, starved of data to spy on. In an ideal world of course. Maybe someday we'll wake up from the nightmare.
gdevenyi 10mo ago
What was the point of mandatory TPM then? I thought they were storing the keys securely there!
- layer8 10mo ago
  Keys are stored securely in a TPM in the sense that a random program has no access to it. They are not stored safely there in the sense that they couldn’t possibly get destroyed. TPM hardware, or the motherboard that hosts it, occasionally fails. Or you might want to migrate your physical hard drive to a different PC. That’s the purpose of backing up the keys to the cloud. Alternatively, you can write down a recovery key and put it in your safe. Personally, I put it in my password vault that also happens to be backed up to the cloud (though not Microsoft’s).
  - direwolf20 10mo ago
    There's also no security in the communication between the CPU and the TPM, so you can plug in a chip that intercepts it and copies all the keys, or plug the TPM into a chip that pretends to be the CPU and derives identical keys.
    - vel0city 10mo ago
      The TPM on most computers these days is a sectioned off part of the CPU that only talks through channels on the package/die (fTPM). Good luck plugging something in on that.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
kmoser 10mo ago
> The hackers would still need physical access to the hard drives to use the stolen recovery keys. Or remote access to the computer. Or access to an encrypted backup drive. Or remote access to a cloud backup of the drive. So no, physical access to the original hard drive is not necessarily a requirement to use the stolen recovery keys.
cmurf 10mo ago
I'm certain I should encrypt my data, backup all LUKS headers, and backup all data. But what about unsophisticated users? In aggregate it might be true data exfiltration is worse than data loss? I don't know if that's true. But what is true is enabling encryption by default without automated backup and escrow will lead to some data loss. It's difficult for me to separate the aggregate scenarios from individual scenarios. The individual penalty of data loss can be severe. Permanent.
aeon_ai 10mo ago
Hello there! Have you heard of our lord and savior, Linux?
- Ylpertnodi 10mo ago
  > Yes, but Which version/fork? If I earn my living from a company that doesn't make Linux versions, should i still switch? Should my customers? It's a great idea, and my work does not touch the internet, but the confusing variations of linux do not a happy workfoce make. Your 'lord and saviour' can fuck off, with all the others, I prefer science.
  - aeon_ai 10mo ago
    You like science? Then test Omarchy.
tamimio 10mo ago
In the year of 2026, the rule of thumb is if you can get your work done without touching windows, then you should. It goes without saying you should never trust any third party let alone a big corp.
citizenpaul 10mo ago
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
heavyset_go 10mo ago
Your firmware and UEFI likely accept MS keys even if you supplied your own for Secure Boot. Sometimes the keys are unable to be removed, or they'll appear "removed" but still present because losing the keys could break firmware updates/option ROMs/etc. Similarly, your TPM is protected by keys Intel or AMD can give anyone. If you want to extrapolate, your Yubikey was supplied by an American company with big contracts to supply government with their products. Since it's closed source and you can't verify what it runs, a similar thing could possibly happen with your smartcard/GPG/pass keys.
docmars 10mo ago
Big shocker! Gotta love the collusion between government and big tech, it never ends, and our 4th amendment will ever be infringed through these loopholes -- and all will carry on not caring enough about it.
ThinkBeat 10mo ago
I fully agree that this is disconcerting form a privacy standpoint, and the danger it poses when Microsoft gets hacked. As for it being user hostile. I am pretty certain that thousands of users a year are delighted when something has gone wrong and they can recover their keys and data from the MS Cloud. There should perhaps be a screen in a wizard, Do you want your data encrypted? y,n If (yes) Do you want to be able to recover your data if something bad happens? (else it will be gone for ever, you can never ever access it again) y/n
vpShane 10mo ago
cachyOS - https://cachyos.org/ https://cachyos.org/ I've absolutely loved switching from Manjaro to this. when it comes to giving out encryption keys, the answer should always be 'we don't have them.' 'you can't get them.' Sad day for privacy at Microsoft.
MoltenMan 10mo ago
I think most people don't understand that 99% of people don't know what data encryption is and definitely don't care about it. If it weren't for Bitlocker, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted at all! And of course if your software (Windows) encrypts by default but you don't want to bother the average user with the details (because they don't know anything about this or care about it) you will need to store the key in case they need it. To everyone saying 'time to use Linux!'; recognize that if these people were using Linux, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted at all!
- bigyabai 10mo ago
  > If it weren't for Bitlocker, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted at all! And because of Bitlocker, their encryption is worth nothing in the end. > if these people were using Linux, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted Maybe, maybe not. Ubuntu and Fedora both have FDE options in the installer. That's objectively more honest and secure than forcing a flawed default in my opinion.
  - MoltenMan 10mo ago
    > And because of Bitlocker, their encryption is worth nothing in the end. No, it's worth exactly what it's meant for: in case your laptop gets stolen! > flawed default Look, in terms of flaws I would argue 'the government can for legal reasons request the key to decrypt my laptop' is pretty low down there. Again, we're dealing with the general populace here; if it's a choice between them getting locked out of their computer completely vs the government being able to decrypt their laptop this is clearly the better option. Those who actually care about privacy will setup FDE themselves, and everyone else gets safety in case their laptop gets stolen.
    - bigyabai 10mo ago
      > No, it's worth exactly what it's meant for: in case your laptop gets stolen! If my laptop gets stolen and it's worth something, the thief will wait until they can crack the management keys. We see this with corporate-locked laptops and Macbooks, iPhones and Androids, and other encrypted curiosities that get cracked at a lab in Tel Aviv for pennies on the dollar. > Those who actually care about privacy will setup FDE themselves This line is equivalent to forfeiting your position so I don't even know what to argue over anymore. I do care about privacy and I have no idea who you're arguing in-favor of.
zeroq 10mo ago
I see two distinct problems here: (1) false advertisement Companies like MS and Apple are telling their clients they offer a way to encrypt and secure their data but at best these claims are only half truths, mostly smoke and mirrors. This is not OK. I don't want to get into legal parts of it, because I'm sure there's a fine print there that literally says it's smoke and mirrors, but it's despicable that these claims are made in the first place. (2) the real need of ironclad encryption I was born and raised in Eastern Europe. When I was a teenager it was common that police would stop me and ask me to show them contents of my backpack. Here you had two options - either (a) you'd show them the contents or (b) you would get beat up to a pulp and disclose the contents anyway. It's at least 5h debate whether that's good or not, but in my mind, for 90% of cases if you're law abiding citizen you can simply unlock your phone and be done with that. Sure, there are remaining 10% of use cases where you are a whistleblower, journalist or whatever and you want to retain whatever you have on your phone. But if you put yourself in that situation you'd better have a good understanding of the tech behind your wellbeing. Namely - use something else.
popalchemist 10mo ago
BitLocker or BootLicker?
WaitWaitWha 10mo ago
> ... The hackers would still need physical access to the hard drives to use the stolen recovery keys. This is incorrect. A full disk image can easily obtained remotely, then mounted wherever the hacking is located. The host machine will happily ask for the Bitlocker key and make the data available. This is a standard process for remote forensic image collection and can be accomplished surreptitiously with COTS.
ddtaylor 10mo ago
BitLocker has a littered history of providing full disk encryption. Use LUKS instead.
ycuser2 10mo ago
I think it is the kind of right place to ask: Is it possible to encrypt the system disc after Linux was installed or so I have to reinstall Linux for that purpose?
- yonatan8070 10mo ago
  https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-crypt/Device_encryption#Encrypt_an_existing_unencrypted_file_system https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-crypt/Device_encryption#...
anonymous344 10mo ago
lol. truecrypt and veracrypt
tomgag 10mo ago
I see a lot of comments recommending TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt here, which is fine, but did you know there is something even more interesting? ;) Shufflecake ( https://shufflecake.net/ https://shufflecake.net/ ) is a "spiritual successor" to TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt but vastly improved: works at the block device level, supports any filesystem of choice, can manage many nested layers of secrecy concurrently in read/write, comes with a formal proof of security, and is blazing fast (so much, in fact, that exceeds performances of LUKS/dm-crypt/VeraCrypt in many scenarios, including SSD use). Disclaimer: it is still a proof of concept, only runs on Linux, has no security audit yet. But there is a prototype for the "Holy Grail" of plausible deniability on the near future roadmap: a fully hidden Linux OS (boots a different Linux distro or Qubes container set depending on the password inserted at boot). Stay tuned!
drumhead 10mo ago
Install Gentoo.....
lpcvoid 10mo ago
Anybody thinking that anything you do on a Windows laptop is in any way private, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
nextlevelwizard 10mo ago
No one should be surprised by this. If you are doing anything on a computer and don’t want it to be readily available to governments or law enforcement you have to use Linux
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
stego-tech 10mo ago
I honestly love how HN is missing the forest for the trees, here, in the sense that ya’ll are upset Microsoft gave keys over for BitLocker to the feds but seemingly forget that Microsoft has been doing this in various forms since BitLocker released. Hell, they’ve given alphabet agencies tools that just pop the decryption in the field before, for intelligence work. I trust BitLocker and Apple’s encryption to protect my stuff against snooping thieves, but I have never, ever assumed for a moment that it’d protect me against a nation-state, and neither should you. All the back-and-forth you see in the media is just what’s public drama, and a thin veil of what’s actually going on behind the scenes. If there’s stuff you don’t want a nation state to see, it better be offline, on a OSS OS, encrypted with thoroughly audited and properly configured security tooling. Even then, you’re more likely to end up in jail for refusing to decrypt it [1][2]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/how-refusing-to-hand-over-your-passwords-can-land-you-in-jail/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/how-refusing-to-hand-over-yo...
assaddayinh 10mo ago
So theoretically if you loose the key , you can selfreport for some small crime and get your laptop decrypted.
Ms-J 10mo ago
This happens with every company that has your sensitive info. When the government asks for your info, the companies provide it. Some ways around this is to either not store sensitive user data on servers, or if that needs to happen then encrypt it with user supplied keys.
Verdex 10mo ago
I gave up on osx 5 years ago. I gave up on Linux 3 years ago. Today, 2 out of 3 of my machines are KDE fedora. The last one is TBD because my kids are using it. I didn't have a choice for machine 1 because it wasn't eligible for windows 11 and windows 10 security updates were EOL. Machine 2 quickly followed. At the time, there had been disappointing windows news every few months. Since there have continued to be disappointing windows news every few months. I expect more disappointing windows news to follow.
neuroelectron 10mo ago
This is not a big deal and in fact it's been a thing for over a decade. If you're resourceful enough, you can do it yourself.
BitOfTheByte 10mo ago
[dead]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
cess11 10mo ago
You should carry around a Ventoy stick with Debian/XFCE and perhaps Mint on it, and a 16 TB external disk, and nag people in your local environment to let you back up their stuff and move them off MICROS~1 operating systems. Tell them you work in IT and that you'll make their computer faster and more secure. Don't mention Linux by name.
commandersaki 10mo ago
This is no different to Apple placing the encryption key for Filevault as plaintext on disk when it is turned off. Both companies make it easy for you to recover data in event of a catastrophe.
swordsith 10mo ago
Being on windows 10 really is a simple life, no windows updates, no win defender malware givng the ok on my files, no microsoft telemetry anymore, cortanas been gone since day one. Then there's win11 users getting abused on the daily.
freakynit 10mo ago
I summarized all comments and overall discussion using LLM for better reading: https://hn-discussions.top/bitlocker-fbi-keys-privacy/ https://hn-discussions.top/bitlocker-fbi-keys-privacy/

1040 points by bookofjoe 10mo ago

bigyabai 10mo ago

Quid pro quo.

advisedwang 10mo ago
What quid pro quo? Is there an allegation that the FBI gave Microsoft something in exchange? As far as I can see this particular case is a straightforward search warrant. A court absolutely has the power to compel Microsoft to hand over the keys. The bigger question is why Microsoft has the recovery feature at all. But honestly I believe Microsoft cares so little about privacy and security that they would do it just to end the "help customers who lose their key" support tickets, with no shady government deal required. I'd want to see something more than speculation to convince me otherwise.

londons_explore 10mo ago

> The case involved several people suspected of fraud related to the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program If it were preventing a mass murder I might feel differently... But this is protecting the money supply (and indirectly the governments control). Not a reason to violate privacy IMO, especially when at the time this was done these people were only suspected of fraud, not convicted.

SoftTalker 10mo ago
They had a warrant. That's enough. Nobody at Microsoft is going to be willing to go to jail for contempt to protect fraudsters grifting off of the public taxpayer. Would you?
- beeflet 10mo ago
  Yes. Businesses have a moral responsibility to honor their agreements with their stakeholders above the government.
Aurornis 10mo ago
> Not a reason to violate privacy IMO, especially when at the time this was done these people were only suspected of fraud, not convicted. Well you can't really wait until the conviction to collect evidence in a criminal trial. There are several stages that law enforcement must go through to get a warrant like this. The police didn't literally phone up Microsoft and ask for the keys to someone's laptop on a hunch. They had to have already confiscated the laptop, which means they had to have collected enough early evidence to prove suspicion and get a judge to sign off and so on.

cogman10 10mo ago

> Microsoft told Forbes that the company sometimes provides BitLocker recovery keys to authorities, having received an average of 20 such requests per year. At least they are honest about it, but a good reason to switch over to linux. Particularly if you travel. If microsoft is giving these keys out to the US government, they are almost certainly giving them to all other governments that request them.

TrainedMonkey 10mo ago
All other governments is a stretch here, but likelihood of at least one another government getting same privileges is extremely high.
Aurornis 10mo ago
It's not like companies have a choice. If they have a key in their possession and law enforcement gets an order for it, they have to provide it.
- function_seven 10mo ago
  That only strengthens the parent point. Switch to an OS where this requirement doesn't come into play if you're worried about any governments having a backdoor into your own machine.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    If you sync your Linux machines key in the cloud, police could subpoena it too. The solution is not to switch to Linux, but to stop storing it in plain text in the cloud.
    - NewsaHackO 10mo ago
      Do you know what a private key means in this context?
      - 10mo ago

Aurornis 10mo ago

FYI BitLocker is on by default in Windows 11. The defaults will also upload the BitLocker key to a Microsoft Account if available. This is why the FBI can compel Microsoft to provide the keys. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that the suspect didn't even know they had an encrypted laptop. Journalists love the "Microsoft gave" framing because it makes Microsoft sound like they're handing these out because they like the cops, but that's not how it works. If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. This makes the privacy purists angry, but in my opinion it's the reasonable default for the average computer user. It protects their data in the event that someone steals the laptop, but still allows them to recover their own data later from the hard drive. Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account.

whalesalad 10mo ago
Any power users should avoid Windows entirely.
- bigyabai 10mo ago
  If by "power user" you mean "enemy of the state", there's a lot of software you'd be better-off avoiding.
  - phanimahesh 10mo ago
    That is a strange viewpoint. Are we calling everyone who wants some control over their computers enemies of the state?
    - bigyabai 10mo ago
      It's holistic philosophy. You're not going to save yourself from FBI surveillance by avoiding Windows, I guarantee that to you.
      - 10mo ago

tucnak 10mo ago

Water is wet. More news at 11

yndoendo 10mo ago
Water is not wet. Water makes non-hydrophobic materials wet. This news piece from a non-tech organization will help educate non-tech people.

tokyobreakfast 10mo ago

This is almost certainly users who elect to store their BitLocker keys in OneDrive. Don't think Apple wouldn't do the same. If you don't want other people to have access to your keys, don't give your keys to other people.

parineum 10mo ago
Both Microsoft and Apple (I think Apple does) have the option to encrypt those keys with the user's password where they are storing them.
malfist 10mo ago
It is the default setting on windows 11 to share your key with microsoft.
- raverbashing 10mo ago
  It's also the "default" in Windows 11 to require a recovery bitlocker key every time you do a minor modification to the "bios" like changing the boot order
giobox 10mo ago
> Don't think Apple wouldn't do the same. Of course Apple offers a similar feature. I know lots of people here are going to argue you should never share the key with a third party, but if Apple and Microsoft didn't offer key escrow they would be inundated with requests from ordinary users to unlock computers they have lost the key for. The average user does not understand the security model and is rarely going to store a recovery key at all, let alone safely. > https://support.apple.com/en-om/guide/mac-help/mh35881/mac https://support.apple.com/en-om/guide/mac-help/mh35881/mac Apple will escrow the key to allow decryption of the drive with your iCloud account if you want, much like Microsoft will optionally escrow your BitLocker drive encryption key with the equivalent Microsoft account feature. If I recall correctly it's the default option for FileVault on a new Mac too.
- tokyobreakfast 10mo ago

Jigsy 10mo ago

This is by far one of the best advertisements for LUKS/VeraCrypt I've ever seen.

jhallenworld 10mo ago
Agree, use Linux, use LUKS. PGP WDE was a preferred corporate solution, but now you have to trust Broadcom.
Coeur 10mo ago
Remember when the original dev of TrueCrypt (the VeraCrypt predecessor) suddenly abandoned the project and wrote that people should use BitLocker instead? [1] [2] We now know that BitLocker is not secure, and an intelligent open source dev saying that was probably knowingly not saying the truth. The best explanation to me is that this was said under duress, because somebody wanted people to move away from the good TrueCrypt to something they could break. [1] https://truecrypt.sourceforge.net https://truecrypt.sourceforge.net [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#End_of_life_announcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#End_of_life_announce...
- 93po 10mo ago
  alternatively, they knew truecrypt/veracrypt to be irrepairably compromised, and while bitlocker may be backdoored in the same way, it is at least maintained
debazel 10mo ago
Sadly VeraCrypt is not optimized for SSDs and has a massive performance impact compared to Bitlocker for full disk encryption because the SSD doesn't know what space is used/free with VeraCrypt.
- Dwedit 10mo ago
  VeraCrypt can be set to pass through TRIM. It just makes it really obvious which sectors are unused within your encrypted partition (they read back as 00 bytes)

dmitrygr 10mo ago

This is why local account setup is so important on windows, and why microsoft makes it harder and harder each update.

paulpauper 10mo ago
or not use microsoft products for encryption
- direwolf20 10mo ago
  or not use microsoft products

SilverElfin 10mo ago

This is disappointing but I wonder if this is quid pro quo. Microsoft and Nadella want to appear to be cooperating with the government, so they are given more government contracts and so they don’t get regulatory problems (like on antitrust or whatever).

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

ferrouswheel 10mo ago

It's interesting how many comments these days are like, "well of course". Back in the day hackernews had some fire and resistance. Too many tech workers decided to rollover for the government and that's why we are in this mess now. This isn't an argument about law, it's about designing secure systems. And lazy engineers build lazy key escrow the government can exploit.

Aurornis 10mo ago
> Back in the day hackernews had some fire and resistance. Most of the comments are fire and resistance, but they commonly take ragebait and run with the assumptions built-in to clickbait headlines. > Too many tech workers decided to rollover for the government and that's why we are in this mess now. I take it you've never worked at a company when law enforcement comes knocking for data? The internet tough guy fantasy where you boldly refuse to provide the data doesn't last very long when you realize that it just means you're going to be crushed by the law and they're getting the data anyway.
- nemomarx 10mo ago
  If you design it so you don't have access to the data, what can they do? I'm sure there's some cryptographic way to avoid Microsoft having direct access to the keys here.
  - t-3 10mo ago
    If you design it so you don't have access to the data, how do you make money? Microsoft (and every other corporation) wants your data. They don't want to be a responsible custodian of your data, they want to sell it and use it for advertising and maintaining good relationships with governments around the world.
    - NegativeK 10mo ago
      > If you design it so you don't have access to the data, how do you make money? The same way companies used to make money, before they started bulk harvesting of data and forcing ads into products that we're _already_ _paying_ _for_? I wish people would have integrity instead of squeezing out every little bit of profit from us they can.

aeternum 10mo ago

Not your keys not your {thing}

observationist 10mo ago

Hear that? It's the sound of the year of the Linux desktop. It's time - it's never been easier, and there's nothing you'll miss about Windows.

tombert 10mo ago
I've been trying to get my parents to move, but until Microsoft Office desktop is able to be run natively on there my parents won't entertain the subject. I've tried to get them to use the web version of office, I've tried to get them to use OnlyOffice and LibreOffice, I've even tried showing them LaTeX as a last ditch effort, but no, if it isn't true Microsoft Branded Office 2024, the topic isn't even worth discussing [1]. I'm sure there are technical reasons why Wine can't run Office 2024, and I am certainly not trying to criticize the wine developers at all, but until I can show Wine running full-fat MS Office, my parents will always "miss" Windows. To be clear, I hate MS Office. I do not miss it on Linux. I'm pretty sure my parents could get by just fine with LibreOffice or OnlyOffice or Google Docs, but they won't hear it. I've also tried to get them to use macOS, since that does have a full-fat MS Office, I've even offered to buy them Macbooks so they can't claim it's "too expensive", and they still won't hear it. I love my parents but they can be stubborn. [1] Before you accuse me of pushing for "developer UI", LaTeX was not something I led with. I tried the more "normy-friendly" options first.
- rz2k 10mo ago
  I use macOS most of the time, but switch to a Windows VM for Excel. Without the same keyboard shortcuts, the macOS version ends up having a fraction of the power available to experienced users of the Windows version. For people who use Excel extensively, LibreOffice or Google Sheets would have to offer some remarkable new killer features to make it worth the switch. I don’t think feature parity alone would make the benefits of Linux outweigh the significant transition costs.
  - tombert 10mo ago
    I mean, I think not having Copilot being shoved at you and not having advertisements pushed on you and having recovery tools that actually work and basically a lifetime of free updates would be a pretty big value add for Linux over Windows, and those go beyond feature parity.

g947o 10mo ago

So, forcing user to connect to Internet and log in to Microsoft account has more to do than tracking you and selling ads -- Microsoft may be intentionally helping law enforcement unlocking your computer -- and that's not a conspiracy.

ChrisArchitect 10mo ago

[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46731694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46731694

motoboi 10mo ago

A more honest title would be: judge order Microsoft to hand over bitlocker keys to FBI.

axus 10mo ago

Here's a story about what the FBI may do when they don't unlock the laptop: https://cointelegraph.com/news/fbi-cant-be-blamed-for-wiping-hard-drive-with-345m-bitcoin-say-judges https://cointelegraph.com/news/fbi-cant-be-blamed-for-wiping... Perhaps next time, an agent will copy the data, wipe the drive, and say they couldn't decrypt it. 10 years ago agents were charged for diverting a suspect's Bitcoin, I feel like the current leadership will demand a cut.

Dilettante_ 10mo ago
This is my biggest fear wrt gov't search-and-seizure. I know the police won't be able to get at my juicy encypted bits, but I also know they're vindictive basterds who'll be held to no accountability. Of course they'll wipe my drives just to get revenge for me "winning" by having blocked their access.
- swordsith 10mo ago
  backups backups backups. give one to your grandma she wont crack the encrypt

alexfromapex 10mo ago

I don't know how many bad things Microsoft has to do before consumers realize they are a terrible company and you should stop buying their stuff.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

uriegas 10mo ago

The problems of centralization. Some economic sectors are centralized by nature, IT is not.

kittikitti 10mo ago

[flagged]

MattSteelblade 10mo ago

Based on the comments in the thread, I sense I will be in the minority, but for most consumers this is a reasonable default. Broadly speaking, the threat model most users are concerned with doesn't account for their government. The previous default is no encryption at rest, which doesn't protect from the most common threats, like theft or tampering. With BitLocker on, a new risk for users is created: loss of access to their data because they don't have their recovery key. You are never forced to keep your recovery keys in Microsoft's servers and it's not a default for corporate users.

nancyminusone 10mo ago
I'll always remember - when I was first learning about it, one of the interesting counter-arguments to ignoring privacy was "what if the Nazis come back, would you want them to have your data?". I suppose there's some debate these days, but hostile governments seem a lot closer than they were 10-15 years ago. Will this make people care? Probably not, but you never know.
- burnt-resistor 10mo ago
  "Closer"? They're already here. Trusting corporations or governments is inherently moronic.
  - pessimizer 10mo ago
    Even in the best of times. Why widen your attack surface unnecessarily? Do you tell people your passwords and PINs at parties? What governments and corporations (and plenty of bad actors in the FOSS world) have done is make this the default; made it easy to mindlessly hand people your privacy without even knowing. Opt-out, if you know the setting exists, and can find it.
Avamander 10mo ago
It's certainly a reasonable default. People lose or have their laptops stolen much more often than they get targeted by their governments. Though that doesn't mean Microsoft couldn't implement a way of storing these keys so that they can't be accessed by Microsoft. Still better than nothing though.

t1234s 10mo ago

If you use a local windows account does it still upload your bitlocker key to M$?

masfuerte 10mo ago
No, and by default the keys are stored on the disk so it's not actually secure. If you open the BitLocker control panel applet your drive(s) will be labelled as "Bitlocker waiting for activation".
- mmmlinux 10mo ago
  Oh? Do tell how to retrieve those insecure keys. I have an old laptop I would love to get access to again.
  - masfuerte 10mo ago
    There was a great blog post a few years ago that reverse engineered the on-disk data structures and demonstrated extracting the key. Of course, I can't find it now. Microsoft themselves [1] say: > If a device uses only local accounts, then it remains unprotected even though the data is encrypted. There is a further condition: if you explicitly enable bitlocker then the key is no longer stored on the disk and it is secure. When I run "manage-bde -status" on my laptop it says "Key Protectors: None found". If the TPM was being used that would be listed. Have you tried plugging the disk or ssd from your old laptop into another computer? [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating...

diego_moita 10mo ago

This isn't even about Microsoft or BitLocker. This is about the U.S.A.: anyone who thrusts the rule of law in the U.S. is a fool. Yes, the American government retrieves these keys "legally". But so what? The American courts won't protect foreigners, even if they are heads of state or dictators. The American government routinely frees criminals (the ones that donate to Republicans) and persecutes lawful citizens (the ones that cause trouble to Republicans). The "rule of law" in the U.S. is a farce. And this is not just about the U.S. Under the "five eyes" agreement, the governments of Canada, UK, Autralia and New Zealand could also grab your secrets. Never trust the United States. We live in dangerous times. Ignore it at your own risk.

gethly 10mo ago

it's like microsoft has nothing better to do other than keep digging the hole to burry windows as mainstay operating system deeper and deeper with every new day.

AmazingTurtle 10mo ago

I have opted out of all cloud services in my windows installation; I use a passphrase, too (it is even before booting the computer). I feel like this is pretty safe

knowitnone3 10mo ago
except MS could easily turn something on without you knowing and be uploading your files to their cloud. Yes, I believe they would stoop that low and even lower.
- EasyMark 10mo ago
  or just save all your keystrokes and regular screen captures with "Recall"

mmooss 10mo ago

> Johns Hopkins professor and cryptography expert Matthew Green raised the potential scenario where malicious hackers compromise Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure — something that has happened several times in recent years — and get access to these recovery keys. Bitlocker isn't serious security. What is the easiest solution for non-technical users? Does FDE duplicate Bitlocker's funcationality?

estimator7292 10mo ago

My Linux drives are all encrypted, and one of the wonderful features of this is that there is no entity or force on this planet that can decrypt them. What happens if I forget my keys? Same thing that happens if my computer gets struck by a meteor. New drive, new key, restore contents from backups. It's simple, secure, set-and-forget, and absolutely nobody but me and your favored deity have any idea what's on my drives. Microsoft and the USGov don't have any business having access to my files, and it's completely theoretically impossible for them to gain access within the next few decades. Don't use Windows. Use a secure operating system. Windows is not security for you, it's security for a hostile authoritarian government.

deejaaymac 10mo ago
I wish there was more people like you and me. Privacy is not a crime.
- NegativeK 10mo ago
  I wish people didn't have to be like us to have privacy.
tombert 10mo ago
Yeah, if the drive can be encrypted by an external party that you didn't give permission, I'm not sure how it's really "encryption" other than burning cycles when doing writes.
digiown 10mo ago
It's a good start, but FDE alone is still fairly easy to compromise in many cases. If you ever type the password under a camera, it may be leaked. If the device ever leaves your possession and you don't have secure boot, your bootloader can be trivially altered to leak the password. Then there are keyloggers. And cold boot attacks can often be done if your system is running.
- aqme28 10mo ago
  And finally-- there are other more "traditional" ways to get people to divulge their keys.

exabrial 10mo ago

The US Government has quickly realized the utility of monopolies and no longer goes after them.

mawise 10mo ago

I consider myself pretty pro-privacy, but there is so much dragnet surveillance and legitimate breaches of the fourth amendment that I have a hard time getting up in arms over a company complying with a valid search warrant that is scoped to three hard drives (and which required law enforcement to have physical possession of the drives to begin with). This is so much more reasonable than (for example) all the EU chat control efforts that would let law enforcement ctrl+f on any so-called private message in the EU.

EasyMark 10mo ago
A lot of them are not really legitimate though. There's a reason that 4th amendment needs a modern version to require a warrant for tapping of any sort for things people generally assume are private. Flock, palantir, etc need to all go bankrupt, starved of data to spy on. In an ideal world of course. Maybe someday we'll wake up from the nightmare.

gdevenyi 10mo ago

What was the point of mandatory TPM then? I thought they were storing the keys securely there!

layer8 10mo ago
Keys are stored securely in a TPM in the sense that a random program has no access to it. They are not stored safely there in the sense that they couldn’t possibly get destroyed. TPM hardware, or the motherboard that hosts it, occasionally fails. Or you might want to migrate your physical hard drive to a different PC. That’s the purpose of backing up the keys to the cloud. Alternatively, you can write down a recovery key and put it in your safe. Personally, I put it in my password vault that also happens to be backed up to the cloud (though not Microsoft’s).
- direwolf20 10mo ago
  There's also no security in the communication between the CPU and the TPM, so you can plug in a chip that intercepts it and copies all the keys, or plug the TPM into a chip that pretends to be the CPU and derives identical keys.
  - vel0city 10mo ago
    The TPM on most computers these days is a sectioned off part of the CPU that only talks through channels on the package/die (fTPM). Good luck plugging something in on that.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]

kmoser 10mo ago

> The hackers would still need physical access to the hard drives to use the stolen recovery keys. Or remote access to the computer. Or access to an encrypted backup drive. Or remote access to a cloud backup of the drive. So no, physical access to the original hard drive is not necessarily a requirement to use the stolen recovery keys.

cmurf 10mo ago

I'm certain I should encrypt my data, backup all LUKS headers, and backup all data. But what about unsophisticated users? In aggregate it might be true data exfiltration is worse than data loss? I don't know if that's true. But what is true is enabling encryption by default without automated backup and escrow will lead to some data loss. It's difficult for me to separate the aggregate scenarios from individual scenarios. The individual penalty of data loss can be severe. Permanent.

aeon_ai 10mo ago

Hello there! Have you heard of our lord and savior, Linux?

Ylpertnodi 10mo ago
> Yes, but Which version/fork? If I earn my living from a company that doesn't make Linux versions, should i still switch? Should my customers? It's a great idea, and my work does not touch the internet, but the confusing variations of linux do not a happy workfoce make. Your 'lord and saviour' can fuck off, with all the others, I prefer science.
- aeon_ai 10mo ago
  You like science? Then test Omarchy.

tamimio 10mo ago

In the year of 2026, the rule of thumb is if you can get your work done without touching windows, then you should. It goes without saying you should never trust any third party let alone a big corp.

citizenpaul 10mo ago

Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

heavyset_go 10mo ago

Your firmware and UEFI likely accept MS keys even if you supplied your own for Secure Boot. Sometimes the keys are unable to be removed, or they'll appear "removed" but still present because losing the keys could break firmware updates/option ROMs/etc. Similarly, your TPM is protected by keys Intel or AMD can give anyone. If you want to extrapolate, your Yubikey was supplied by an American company with big contracts to supply government with their products. Since it's closed source and you can't verify what it runs, a similar thing could possibly happen with your smartcard/GPG/pass keys.

docmars 10mo ago

Big shocker! Gotta love the collusion between government and big tech, it never ends, and our 4th amendment will ever be infringed through these loopholes -- and all will carry on not caring enough about it.

ThinkBeat 10mo ago

I fully agree that this is disconcerting form a privacy standpoint, and the danger it poses when Microsoft gets hacked. As for it being user hostile. I am pretty certain that thousands of users a year are delighted when something has gone wrong and they can recover their keys and data from the MS Cloud. There should perhaps be a screen in a wizard, Do you want your data encrypted? y,n If (yes) Do you want to be able to recover your data if something bad happens? (else it will be gone for ever, you can never ever access it again) y/n

vpShane 10mo ago

cachyOS - https://cachyos.org/ https://cachyos.org/ I've absolutely loved switching from Manjaro to this. when it comes to giving out encryption keys, the answer should always be 'we don't have them.' 'you can't get them.' Sad day for privacy at Microsoft.

MoltenMan 10mo ago

I think most people don't understand that 99% of people don't know what data encryption is and definitely don't care about it. If it weren't for Bitlocker, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted at all! And of course if your software (Windows) encrypts by default but you don't want to bother the average user with the details (because they don't know anything about this or care about it) you will need to store the key in case they need it. To everyone saying 'time to use Linux!'; recognize that if these people were using Linux, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted at all!

bigyabai 10mo ago
> If it weren't for Bitlocker, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted at all! And because of Bitlocker, their encryption is worth nothing in the end. > if these people were using Linux, their laptops wouldn't be encrypted Maybe, maybe not. Ubuntu and Fedora both have FDE options in the installer. That's objectively more honest and secure than forcing a flawed default in my opinion.
- MoltenMan 10mo ago
  > And because of Bitlocker, their encryption is worth nothing in the end. No, it's worth exactly what it's meant for: in case your laptop gets stolen! > flawed default Look, in terms of flaws I would argue 'the government can for legal reasons request the key to decrypt my laptop' is pretty low down there. Again, we're dealing with the general populace here; if it's a choice between them getting locked out of their computer completely vs the government being able to decrypt their laptop this is clearly the better option. Those who actually care about privacy will setup FDE themselves, and everyone else gets safety in case their laptop gets stolen.
  - bigyabai 10mo ago
    > No, it's worth exactly what it's meant for: in case your laptop gets stolen! If my laptop gets stolen and it's worth something, the thief will wait until they can crack the management keys. We see this with corporate-locked laptops and Macbooks, iPhones and Androids, and other encrypted curiosities that get cracked at a lab in Tel Aviv for pennies on the dollar. > Those who actually care about privacy will setup FDE themselves This line is equivalent to forfeiting your position so I don't even know what to argue over anymore. I do care about privacy and I have no idea who you're arguing in-favor of.

zeroq 10mo ago

I see two distinct problems here: (1) false advertisement Companies like MS and Apple are telling their clients they offer a way to encrypt and secure their data but at best these claims are only half truths, mostly smoke and mirrors. This is not OK. I don't want to get into legal parts of it, because I'm sure there's a fine print there that literally says it's smoke and mirrors, but it's despicable that these claims are made in the first place. (2) the real need of ironclad encryption I was born and raised in Eastern Europe. When I was a teenager it was common that police would stop me and ask me to show them contents of my backpack. Here you had two options - either (a) you'd show them the contents or (b) you would get beat up to a pulp and disclose the contents anyway. It's at least 5h debate whether that's good or not, but in my mind, for 90% of cases if you're law abiding citizen you can simply unlock your phone and be done with that. Sure, there are remaining 10% of use cases where you are a whistleblower, journalist or whatever and you want to retain whatever you have on your phone. But if you put yourself in that situation you'd better have a good understanding of the tech behind your wellbeing. Namely - use something else.

popalchemist 10mo ago

BitLocker or BootLicker?

WaitWaitWha 10mo ago

> ... The hackers would still need physical access to the hard drives to use the stolen recovery keys. This is incorrect. A full disk image can easily obtained remotely, then mounted wherever the hacking is located. The host machine will happily ask for the Bitlocker key and make the data available. This is a standard process for remote forensic image collection and can be accomplished surreptitiously with COTS.

ddtaylor 10mo ago

BitLocker has a littered history of providing full disk encryption. Use LUKS instead.

ycuser2 10mo ago

I think it is the kind of right place to ask: Is it possible to encrypt the system disc after Linux was installed or so I have to reinstall Linux for that purpose?

yonatan8070 10mo ago
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-crypt/Device_encryption#Encrypt_an_existing_unencrypted_file_system https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-crypt/Device_encryption#...

anonymous344 10mo ago

lol. truecrypt and veracrypt

tomgag 10mo ago

I see a lot of comments recommending TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt here, which is fine, but did you know there is something even more interesting? ;) Shufflecake ( https://shufflecake.net/ https://shufflecake.net/ ) is a "spiritual successor" to TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt but vastly improved: works at the block device level, supports any filesystem of choice, can manage many nested layers of secrecy concurrently in read/write, comes with a formal proof of security, and is blazing fast (so much, in fact, that exceeds performances of LUKS/dm-crypt/VeraCrypt in many scenarios, including SSD use). Disclaimer: it is still a proof of concept, only runs on Linux, has no security audit yet. But there is a prototype for the "Holy Grail" of plausible deniability on the near future roadmap: a fully hidden Linux OS (boots a different Linux distro or Qubes container set depending on the password inserted at boot). Stay tuned!

drumhead 10mo ago

Install Gentoo.....

lpcvoid 10mo ago

Anybody thinking that anything you do on a Windows laptop is in any way private, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

nextlevelwizard 10mo ago

No one should be surprised by this. If you are doing anything on a computer and don’t want it to be readily available to governments or law enforcement you have to use Linux

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

stego-tech 10mo ago

I honestly love how HN is missing the forest for the trees, here, in the sense that ya’ll are upset Microsoft gave keys over for BitLocker to the feds but seemingly forget that Microsoft has been doing this in various forms since BitLocker released. Hell, they’ve given alphabet agencies tools that just pop the decryption in the field before, for intelligence work. I trust BitLocker and Apple’s encryption to protect my stuff against snooping thieves, but I have never, ever assumed for a moment that it’d protect me against a nation-state, and neither should you. All the back-and-forth you see in the media is just what’s public drama, and a thin veil of what’s actually going on behind the scenes. If there’s stuff you don’t want a nation state to see, it better be offline, on a OSS OS, encrypted with thoroughly audited and properly configured security tooling. Even then, you’re more likely to end up in jail for refusing to decrypt it [1][2]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/how-refusing-to-hand-over-your-passwords-can-land-you-in-jail/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/how-refusing-to-hand-over-yo...

assaddayinh 10mo ago

So theoretically if you loose the key , you can selfreport for some small crime and get your laptop decrypted.

Ms-J 10mo ago

This happens with every company that has your sensitive info. When the government asks for your info, the companies provide it. Some ways around this is to either not store sensitive user data on servers, or if that needs to happen then encrypt it with user supplied keys.

Verdex 10mo ago

I gave up on osx 5 years ago. I gave up on Linux 3 years ago. Today, 2 out of 3 of my machines are KDE fedora. The last one is TBD because my kids are using it. I didn't have a choice for machine 1 because it wasn't eligible for windows 11 and windows 10 security updates were EOL. Machine 2 quickly followed. At the time, there had been disappointing windows news every few months. Since there have continued to be disappointing windows news every few months. I expect more disappointing windows news to follow.

neuroelectron 10mo ago

This is not a big deal and in fact it's been a thing for over a decade. If you're resourceful enough, you can do it yourself.

BitOfTheByte 10mo ago

[dead]

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

cess11 10mo ago

You should carry around a Ventoy stick with Debian/XFCE and perhaps Mint on it, and a 16 TB external disk, and nag people in your local environment to let you back up their stuff and move them off MICROS~1 operating systems. Tell them you work in IT and that you'll make their computer faster and more secure. Don't mention Linux by name.

commandersaki 10mo ago

This is no different to Apple placing the encryption key for Filevault as plaintext on disk when it is turned off. Both companies make it easy for you to recover data in event of a catastrophe.

swordsith 10mo ago

Being on windows 10 really is a simple life, no windows updates, no win defender malware givng the ok on my files, no microsoft telemetry anymore, cortanas been gone since day one. Then there's win11 users getting abused on the daily.

freakynit 10mo ago

I summarized all comments and overall discussion using LLM for better reading: https://hn-discussions.top/bitlocker-fbi-keys-privacy/ https://hn-discussions.top/bitlocker-fbi-keys-privacy/