Windows Vista To Make Dual-Boot A Challenge? 442
mustafap writes "UK tech site The Register is reporting on security guru Bruce Schneier's observation that the disk encryption system to be shipped with Vista, BitLocker, will make dual booting other OSs difficult - you will no longer be able to share data between the two." From the article: "This encryption technology also has the effect of frustrating the exchange of data needed in a dual boot system. 'You could look at BitLocker as anti-Linux because it frustrates dual boot,' Schneier told El Reg. Schneier said Vista will bring forward security improvements, but cautioned that technical advances are less important than improvements in how technology is presented to users."
And another EU Commision lawsuit in 3... 2... 1... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whatever...try fat32 partition (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes... and what extra limitations on FAT32 can we expect in Vista?
No Sign Yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Whatever...try fat32 partition (Score:2, Interesting)
FileVault Anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, most dual booters that go between Windows and Linux already have dealt with these issues due to the unfriendly nature of NTFS.
Oh jeebus. Save us from ignorance. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And another EU Commision lawsuit in 3... 2... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's not a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
I still use Windows XP at work because I have to, but recently several of our tools have migrated to platform-independent web apps we can access through any browser. I'm guessing our IT department took one look at Vista and decided to start making a transition to Linux easy.
I dream of the day (Score:3, Interesting)
I really do. If it was me in charge, first thing I'd do - day one - would be to either hire people currently working on the Wine project, or hire a bunch of other qualified people and have them contribute to it. Get Wine working, then get it working well. Get a contract with Transgaming too - have them help. Imagine a Mac that played all the Win32/DirectX games! You wouldn't have an excuse then, right? Then, I'd dump all that work back into the FOSS community so others could benefit, and have a brilliant super-compatible easy to use Wine built into the next Mac OS.
Ahhh...how great it would be. And it's the best kind of dream. It's possible.
Re:What you mean it could still be possible (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, on the note of using FAT32 so both OS'es can deal with each other's file systems; there is a native Windows driver for full read/write to Ext2/3 partitions that works pretty well. What I usually do is make three partitions; two small ones and one big one. Each OS goes on a small one and then I use Ext2 on the large one since it doesn't have the file size and naming restrictions FAT32 does.
Re:Whatever...try thinking right (Score:2, Interesting)
1) BitLocker will ONLY work with NTFS.
Given that BitLocker exists transparently under the file system, automatically encrypting/decrypting transparently, there is no technical reason for them to limit it to this. In fact, given the wide number of FAT32 removable storage devices, which people will likely want to encrypt, it seems very likely that BitLocker will support non-NTFS devices.
Re:Problem is secret algorithm (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I don't see this being a big problem for Linux because MS encryption never goes to far in any company. NTFS encryption has been around since 2000 and I've yet to see a company swear by this system. This is going to be used by people who are paranoid about what's on their drives over recovering that said data and thats basicially it, and frankly this group will sleep easier knowing nothing else (including other windows versions) can access the drive.
Also, keep in mind that BitLocker is not on by default, and Linux should have no problem reading FAT32 and Unencrypted NTFS partitions. If you want to read the drive in linux, don't encrypt it.
Re:Not in Vista 64 (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is moot to everyone who does not require fancy-userfriendlyness.
WinZip and WinRAR can display the contents of an archive. It's not much of a jump to manually read the partition and display the contents in the same fashion - the only difference is that you write the code to work at the user level rather than a Kernel Level.
BTW, drivers need to be debugged somehow. From the site you linked to:
Feel free to call it BS, but drivers will need to be debugged and tested before they can be accepted by Microsoft for the WHQL stamp. If drivers are not signed, then you'd either have to trust all your developers not to leak the keys, or do a time consuming development process.
Re:Whatever...try fat32 partition (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, maybe we could actually put on a thinking cap and just not turn on BitLocker? Wow, what a concept...
Does anyone get this? It is NOT TURNED ON UNLESS YOU TURN IT ON?
So if you are Dual Booting, simply don't turn on BitLocker, because you would have NO reason to. Makes perfect sense to me, and I don't see any motive in this technology, and yes I have used it on test systems.
Suggesting that people need to now go back to using FAT32 has nothing to do with BitLocker in this context.
The article was VERY misleading to bait everyone here, and guess what, fools it did make. Go to www.microsoft.com or even wikipedia.com and read about what it is and why there should be no dual-booting tinfoil hat theories about it.
Why argue about a security technology that will only be used by a few people with laptops or truly have secure data that they are only accessing from a Vista Machine.
The article saying MS being anti-Linux because of this technology is the STUPIDEST thing I have read in a while.
Does this mean MS is anti-WindowsXP because it sure as hell CANNOT read the data on a Vista Volume that has Bitlocker enabled either.
I know it was the register, but how could someone be so stupid?
In summary, Bitlocker is
1) Optional
2) Drive Level 128 or 256bit Security
3) Not EVER turned on by default or EVER required to use Vista.
4) Something that requires administrator access to Enable
5) Not recommended for the 'average' user, per MS's instructions because a lost PIN literally means the data is lost.
6) MS also explains not to use it on ANY Volume you would want to gain access to from another OS, including WindowsXP, as it is not able to read a BitLocker secured drive either.
So, if you are dual-booting, JUST DON'T USE IT, OK?
Re:And another EU Commision lawsuit in 3... 2... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually this feature is pretty much as set in stone as you can get. The guy writing the article knows little to nothing about bitlocker, especially baiting people into believing it has any anti-Linux intentions.
As for it being a real feature and as the person above posted, they are correct and it is.
I am truly looking at the help file for Bitlocker in Vista as I type this. (We have also tested BitLocker on several systems, it does what it is supposed to do, and it has to be enabled by the END USER, as their key/pin is used to encrypt the drive.
And lets say as a goof Dell did enable this feature, and assigned a key and pin to the person buying the computer, all you do is type in your pin for access and then turn BitLocker off. (It can be turned on and off for the entire drive quite easily once it has been enabled.)
It is 100% optional, and not something recommended for the average person, it also is not recommended for volumes that need to be access from another OS in a multi-boot environment, so just don't use it.
You do realize it even locks out WindowsXP if you are dual booting WindowsXP and Vista and you use BitLocker to encrypt your Vista partiion?
This is NOT an evil plan against other OSes.