Removable drives are displayed with their drive letters and volume names in the "Safely Remove" menu, and I can just eject them, instead of having to dismount them first in TrueCrypt. It is hiding the drive letters that has the side effect of removing the drive letters and labels from "Safely Remove", which I describe more in (3).ģ. I don't have to fool around with hiding drive letters for the RAW volumes to avoid getting the "Do you want to format" prompts when I plug in external drives. VSS and TRIM work on all drives, not just the ones in the scope of system encryption, and I don't need to mount fixed data drives as removable devices to avoid errors when using vssadmin.Ģ. Here are the advantages I've found to using BitLocker:ġ. I have both Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows 8 Pro licenses, so I was good to go for BitLocker, which I had never used before now. While I was not overly concerned that TrueCrypt had suddenly turned into a pumpkin and become unsafe to use, its detrimental effects on VSS, TRIM, drive letters, and so forth had been bugging me for a long time, and the discontinuation notice was the final motivation I needed to look at an alternative. I've been using TrueCrypt pervasively on all three systems I have and almost a couple dozen system, data, external backup, and thumb drives, so moving to BitLocker was not something I took lightly. I just reviewed it and have nothing to change here in November. This message is a summary of what I had found out six weeks or so after transitioning from TrueCrypt to BitLocker, which I did back in June shortly after the publication of the discontinuation notice. I did post a related message concerning imaging differences in this forum: I wrote the following almost a year ago, but I don't see that I ever posted it here. Sure, it means it's more robust against bruteforce attack, but for those who use 40+ char random password, how much value it has.I don't say no value, but bruteforcing 40+ password is impossible at least for several years (probably much more), and remember, such adversary can attack key directly where hashing doesn't help.īut why they disregard serious, yeah, quite BIG performance delay many ppl discussing here? They should make user can choose iteration count rather than hardcode it.Ĭlick to expand.On Windows, there are several advantages to using BitLocker over TrueCrypt. ![]() As to increased iteration count, it's moot. I have never posted about Veracrypt except some of those Wilders posts and only 1 or 2 positive posts in another forum probably they don't know and can't read, never tried to make VC looks bad nor found someone doing that.ĭefinite advantage of VC is it fixed vuln found in 1st audit and will fix vuln in final audit. SHA1's disadvantage is only faster calcuration, but collision or even preimage vulnerability do not affect security of password hashing or key derivation.Īnd.this can look like as if persecution mania. ![]() As some anonymous poster noted, this is not correct, as long as properly implemented only aspect of hash which affects security in this kind of encryption is time to calculate. ![]() Yes I use, but I have some concern about dev's attitude.įirst, regarding hash algorithm, he speaks as if "SHA1 is bad BECAUSE it is broken hash".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |