commanderMicrosoft gave FBI a set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops: Reports | TechCrunch
empireOfLove2So, this means Microsoft has copies of every single bitlocker key, meaning that a bad actor could obtain them… Thereby making bitlocker less than worthless, it’s an active threat.
MS really speedrunning worst possible software timeline
MS really speedrunning worst possible software timeline
dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️They don’t have a copy of every single Bitlocker key. They do have a copy of your Bitlocker key if you are dumb enough to allow it to sync with your Microsoft account, you know, “for convenience.”
Don’t use a Microsoft account with Windows, even if you are forced to use Windows.
They do have a copy of your Bitlocker key if you are dumb enough to allow it to sync with your Microsoft account, you know, “for convenience.”
Which I don’t believe is the only way it can leak. It’s well known Microsoft can access anything and everything on an internet connected Windows PC whether there’s a Microsoft account or not. If the nazi’s push for the device of someone on a local account only, you know they’ll magically find a way.
tabularTo use Windows without a Microsoft account requires tech literacy these days, I thought. I would not be suprised if users didn’t choose to sync with a MS account but it’s doing it anyway, if that’s what MS want.
If you sign in with a Microsoft account at all I don’t believe there’s the capability to opt out.
I only use local accounts. I have never had a Microsoft account. I never will.
You can’t do that anymore, at least not with a normal Windows installation. All of the tricks of forcing it offline, clicking cancel 10 times and jumping up and down don’t work anymore, they’ve disabled them all, the only way to install Windows 11 now (using the normal Microsoft installer) is by linking it to a Microsoft account.
Using Rufus still works. I did it as recently as a couple of days ago.
u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)Sorry, but the argument above was for a regular user, who doesn’t know what Rufus is, who doesn’t know the concept of OS, who simply knows thinks the files are saved “on the computer” (while they somehow ended up on OneDrive).
deczzzThis is not true. There are several tools to create a bootable USB that uses a local account.
They just made it hard for Joe Schmoe to avoid it.
I have a windows 11 installation without an account. You got to get an alternative image (I got LTSC).
I was really hoping there would be a jailbroken version of windows by now, you know a version that doesn’t update and doesn’t have any bloatware.
I guess it’s just not worth it given how far Linux has advanced.
I download win11 from Microsoft last week and the 1st method in the page worked (ms-cxh localonly)
https://learn.microsoft.com/sv-se/answers/questions/5581996/windows-11-local-account-on-installation
Windows 11 - Local account on installation - Microsoft Q&A
I'm so tired of Microsoft forcing things upon us that we do NOT want. Let us choose a local account on installation. Don't make it so freaking complicated. Besides that, Windows 11 is pure SPYWARE at this time, maybe it should even be labeled as…
Interesting, I haven’t seen that approach before
I’m not even sure if you can install without an MS account if you don’t use Rufus anymore. Rufus requires literacy for sure, and even if you can still do it without it is designed to make it impossible to know you can from within the installer itself.
Main issue with Rufus is secure boot unfortunately, otherwise Rufus is easy enough that I gave a couple “click here, then here, then here and here are some screenshots” to a friend they were able to navigate it just fine. At this point I swear Rufus is easier than using the official installer provided Secure Boot is off.
Wispy2891
「黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui」(he/him)Encryption doesn’t actually complete until you log in with a Microsoft account for Home Edition.
Anyways: Use Veracrypt.
Or just Linux + LUKS
iterableSave a copy of your bitlocker keys to a Veracrypt drive with a password no shorter then 15 mixed characters. Then upload that encrypted container to any free service. They wont be able to open it and now you have a remote backup copy.
I employed the super secure expedient of never exporting my keys. I have no idea what they are, I never did, and I never will.
There’s really no irreplaceable data on my Windows machine. If I have to reformat it some day A) that’s no big deal, and B) it’s Windows, what else is new.
Why not save a step, fuck bitlocker, and use veracrypt to encrypt your drive in the first place?
Nyx0rIf you can have two computers one should always be Linux. But gaming and certain software just does not work on Linux yet sadly. Hoping steam can turn that around.
GloomyMade the switch about a year ago. Every game i wanted to play worked just fine. I suppose it depends on the games you play, but to say it just does not work is plainly just wrong
That is a option but it’s performance is bad and you need at least fifteen mix character password every time you boot. If you game you need to use bitlocker sadly or load times dive hard. Having a second drive in full Veracrypt is fine for things like basic documents but not to game on.
Don’t use a Microsoft account with Windows
Ftfy
Don’t use a Microsoft account with Windows
FFTFY.
Bethesda anything, Azure, Outlook, GitHub, Visual Studio, Office, Bing, XBox, LinkedIn, SharePoint (so disgusting this is a given), fuck it not even Skype (lmao what year is it?)
Still kinda hurts they own Bethesda now, but considering that company has only produced garbage since FO4 which only was kinda mid, I don’t even mind skipping them.
Game gonna be buggier than skyrim at release and only 10% as fun because it’s vibe coded
Dualboot, don’t store sensitive files in windows?
(Although I’m having a bit of trouble trying to do dualboot myself so… idk lol)
The anticheat problem already is fixed. It’s called “don’t play games that don’t support your choices”. These days, no game is worth being put through all that AI bullshit.
But, by default, BitLocker recovery keys are uploaded to Microsoft’s cloud, allowing the tech giant — and by extension law enforcement — to access them and use them to decrypt drives encrypted with BitLocker, as with the case reported by Forbes.
I mean it’s dumb to sync but at same time it’s not like MS isn’t great at either making it almost impossible to not sync it re-enable syncing for a bit after updates.
You can constantly tell it not to sync but all it takes is MS saying we want it now and they’ll get it
PikaWhats dumb is this issue is very easily resolved by encrypting the users security pin or password against the bitlocker keys and then only storing that.
or better yet have the pin/password an isolated thing from the microsoft system, so when a key gets uploaded, it requests the recovery pin, and if the pin matches it uploads, otherwise it states invalid pin and offers to change it while warning that it will remove existing keys, then optionally next time a system whom contains a drive with an identifier (which wouldn’t need to be encrypted only the key) goes online, it can prompt the user “note: due to recovery pin, drive X recovery key needs to be backed up again, would you like to do so?”
This type of system would make it so the only data MS has stored is the already encrypted recovery key, and as such would mean that the data they gave law enforcement would be worthless.
i heard win11 its automatically used online for home.
JustEnoughDucksAre you naive enough to believe the surveillance OS that uploads literally all of your activity along with screenshots of your desktop doesn’t automatically upload you keys no matter what little box you tick on the installer?? 😂 there is absolutely not one single 3rd party auditing that they actually follow any of the options at all that they give.
ObiniceNo they do not have copies of every Bitlocker key.
Bitlocker by default creates a 48-bit recovery code that can be used to unlock an encrypted drive. If you run Windows with a personal Microsoft account it offers to backup that code into your Microsoft account in case your system needs recovered. The FBI submitted a supoena to request the code for a person’s encrypted drive. Microsoft provided it, as required by law.
Bitlocker does not require that key be created, and you don’t have to save it to Microsoft’s cloud.
This is just a case of people not knowing how things work and getting surprised when the data they save in someone else’s computer is accessed using the legal processes.
Except that Microsoft basically puts a gun to every users head to login with a Microsoft account which can/does backup the recovery keys.
This is why we Jason Bourne style snatch the gun out of their holster before they can draw it and beat them unconcious with it, I mean oobe\bypassnro
DraconicSunRufus: “Am I a joke to you?”
If you sign into a Microsoft account during setup, Microsoft automatically turns on bitlocker and sends the key off to Microsoft for safe keeping. You are right, there are other ways to handle bitlocker, but that’s way beyond most people, and I don’t think Microsoft even tells you this during setup. It’s honestly a lifesaver for when bitlocker breaks(and it does), but it comes at a cost. In the business world, this is seen as a huge benefit, as we aren’t trying to protect from the US government, mostly petty theft and maybe some corporate espionage.
As is often the case, the real solution is Linux, but that, too, is far beyond most people until manufacturers start shipping Linux machines to big box stores and even then they’d probably not enable any encryption.
I question whether we are rapidly approaching the point where Linux is simply easier to use in a safe, secure, and practical way for the average user, because it doesn’t try to actively fuck you over like Microsoft does
It’s easier when you don’t need to jump through hoops to make a local account. It’s easier when you don’t need to turn off a dozen settings you might not know about regarding data collection or advertisements. It’s easier when you don’t have an antagonistic system that treats you like the product, not a user, not pushing you towards confusing things you don’t want
Could be worse. Could have skeleton keys
You’re assuming there isn’t a master pubkey baked into the software.
And people make fun of me for turning off secure boot and tpm. They just cause grief for no benefit.
As long as you’re doing your own whole disk encryption, you have a valid path to still be secure. However, if you’re running an unencrypted disk, you’re much more likely to lose your data to a non-state actor.