Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
>> Matthew Mucker wrote:
>>> In the future, Microsoft's BitLocker technology can solve this problem. If
>>> the computer has a TPM chip and BitLocker is enabled, the whole drive is
>>> encrypted and the key is stored on the computer's motherboard.
>> Why wait for the future, numerous OS's can do this today through 
>> loopback mounting drives through an encrypting driver.
> 
> I'm not an expert in this technology -- and I'm not trying to push or
> defend something here :) --, but Microsoft's NTFS also can create encrypted
> drives now. 
> 
> But the BitLocker method is different from that (and from the encrypting
> driver method you're referring to) in that the encryption isn't done by the
> processor, but by a separate hardware device. Also, BitLocker seems to be
> available now.
> 
> Also, some of the information about where the keys are stored and how it
> works that has been discussed here seems to be lacking precision. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitlocker
> 
>> Yay, Microsoft will have it in "the future"!  (GRIN)
> 
> IMO it's always a good thing to check the facts before trying to get too
> funny :)

I'm just going on the MS guy's descriptions of what it'll do when trying 
to be funny.

If someone's going to sing the praises of something, they can be the 
"expert" on it.  :-)

I know how to encrypt drives and have been doing so for many years...

It's kinda like hearing an announcement that there's going to be this 
great new thing called an automobile while you're driving in yours to 
work.  And the same kind of reaction anyone else would have to a similar 
"important announcement".

Funny in and of itself, to watch the marketing hype engines at work...

BitLocker (now that I've looked at it) looks like a truly horrible 
idea... lose your motherboard or the specific hardware chipset 
(technology marches on!), no recovery of your data.  Dumb.

It's just another way to force vendor lock-in, apparently.  You must buy 
the motherboards that support it as well as MS products.  Bad idea. 
Buying/using encryption "products" that work on any commodity hardware, 
seems much smarter.

It's the exact same debate as DRM'ed media, really.  Now they're asking 
you to DRM your own data?  NO THANKS.

Nate
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist