• Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      48 minutes ago

      Copy Fail, Dirty Frag and Fragnesia exist. What are you going to switch to now?

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        40 minutes ago

        They will be patched. There is also no indication that they 'be been known and exploited till recently.

        This was allegedly deliberately non patched to be exploited.

        Getting a system without bugs and security issues is impossible, you can at least avoid intentional compromise.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 minutes ago

        Those are potential vulnerabilities that can be patched. This is an indication that MS intends for bitlocker which you really need to be secure to bother using windows on a laptop to never be secure by design.

      • 87Six@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 minutes ago

        I always wonder whether to block people like you.

        Sometimes I see your comments and get angry at how stupid you are.

        Other times I see your comments and become really aware of how intelligent I am compared to… whatever the hell you are.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      Why are you lying? One is a privilege exploit that has been patched. It lets someone who can already run software on your machine do more. This is a backdoor that could allow hostile governments or thieves to steal your files from any machine in their possession. Things what would always have been secure on any Linux machine from the last 20 years.

  • Deebster@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This Chaotic Eclipse/Nightmare Eclipse is the same one whose opening post read:

    I never wanted to reopen a blog and a new github account to drop code…

    But someone violated our agreement and left me homeless with nothing. They knew this will happen and they still stabbed me in the back anyways, this is their decision not mine.

    I’m guessing there’s plenty more to come.

    Kinda funny that they’re targeting Microsoft and yet using GitHub to share the PoCs.

    • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It really isn’t. The encryption itself still hasn’t been defeated. The implementation is the problem. Microsoft just can’t get out of their own way. If they ignored all the business majors, nobody would be able to stop them.

      • 0x0@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Lol, if they ignored that they would have gone extinct in the 90’s

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Of course they did. They have no interest in protecting your privacy and every interest in making you think they do. I would’ve been way more surprised to learn there wasn’t a backdoor.

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’m left puzzed as to how this works …like… the data on the disk should be encrypted sector by sector…it takes forever to encrypt or decrypt a disk which is consistent with that understanding.

      When you boot into PE, I don’t understand how that OS can read anything off the disk, yellowkey or not, without knowing the encryption key…so how does it get that key. Is the vulnerability here that the key is stored in the TPM and win PE can be convinced to retrieve it without the proper credentials being provided ?

      If that’s the case, and the TPM can just provide the key on request…then… where is the security here ?

      • hperrin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 hours ago

        My guess is that the key to decrypt the disk is stored on the disk, encrypted by a Microsoft-known key. This seems to unlock that copy of the key rather than the copy encrypted by your own key.

        Though he did say to put the disk back in the original system in part of the instructions, so it might be TPM based. The way to check would be to try this on a system with a disk from another system, or with a wiped TPM.

        TPM is not security, it’s security theatre. If you don’t need to type a password in or insert a device with a key on it during boot, then it’s not secure, period.

  • DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    The entire Microsoft, Apple and Google ecosystem is USA backdoors. That’s why I call it American spyware.

  • Miller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    You mean that thing everyone knew about since the authorities derailed open-source TrueCrypt and forced them to message their users that they should migrate to BitLocker?

    • WesternInfidels@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      There’s an open-source successor to TrueCrypt called VeraCrypt. For that matter, as far as I know, one can still download the last version of TrueCrypt. It hasn’t been disappeared.

      It’s true that the TrueCrypt developers retired and said that commercial packages like BitLocker were finally good enough and available enough that they didn’t feel compelled to maintain TrueCrypt. I remember that. I think it’s plausible that Microsoft has (or has provided to someone) back-door access to BitLocker, but I don’t remember any hint that the TrueCrypt developers had been coerced; have you got something you can link to?

      • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 hours ago

        These days, if you’re not on Windows you can use luks or just zfs with encryption enabled. Code is open and can be audited by anyone. But yes, VeraCrypt to my knowledge is also still a viable option.

      • Miller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Certainly at the time there was talk of coercion, there was talk the developers had been asked to put in a backdoor, had refused and then been encouraged to cease and desist their work on TrueCrypt and provide written recommendation of BitLocker, the wording of which did not seem to be their own. But people like conspiracies, maybe the authors did just move on, and if that was encouraged it probably was not as sinister as suggested. Security and privacy will always be duking it out.

        • tomiant@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          But people like conspiracies,

          In spite of the fact that they never happen and that government mass surveillance isn’t a thing and hasn’t been exposed repeatedly for decades and that we all know they have not been aiming to do this exact thing for the better part of a century and that they are genuinely evil and literally never prove themselves to be over and over and over.

  • Dalraz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Seems like every week there is another reason why I’m thankful I switched to Linux a few years ago.

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Only thing I find annoying with full volume LUKS encryption is that it makes it difficult to resize partitions, it’s a whole thing, but it’s a minor hassle and not something I’d do every day anyway.

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I remember the day I saw the “Intel! Inside” commercial and the logo, and I thought, I don’t fucking trust this company.

      Yeah no shit Intel inside, you’ve got every fucking three letter agency inside.

      I knew it was over the day they introduced UEFI and TPM.

        • forestbeasts@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Mostly the “secure boot” crap, which you can turn off (it’s more a “running your own software on the machine” risk than a privacy risk). UEFI in general isn’t too bad (way way WAY more complex than BIOS though) and managing EFI bootloaders is so much less hassle than with BIOS boot!

          – Frost

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            All I know about secure boot is that if I make a custom ISO and try booting from it, I would need to create a signature first, register it in my UEFI, and use it to sign the ISO.

            Seems like a pain in the ass, but then again if I want to play with a custom ISO I can do so in a VM, and that seems kind of worth it to prevent someone from booting whateverthefuck if they somehow gain physical access to my computer…

  • Carmakazi@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Tech megacorps are the fifth estate of their home countries, trusting your data to Microsoft or Google is essentially the same as handing it directly to the FBI and CIA.