Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

techcrunch.com

651–660 of 694 posts

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> delete your existing keys from OneDrive This seems to go against principles of key management. If your key escrow peer has defected, the correct response is to rotate your keys.

Exactly. I question why the parent says you have to re-encrypt the drive. Microsoft has the KEK or passphrase that can be used to derive the KEK. The KEK protects the DEK which is used to encrypt the data. Rotating the KEK (or KEKs if multiple slots are used) will overwrite the encrypted DEK, rendering the old KEK useless. Or does BitLocker work differently than typical data at rest encryption?

BitLocker recovery keys are essentially the key to an at-rest, local copy of the real key. (I.e., they need access to the encrypted drive to get the real encryption key)

When you use a recovery key at preboot, it decrypts that on-disk backup copy of the encryption key with your numerical recovery key, and uses the decrypted form as the actual disk encryption key. Thus, you can delete & regenerate a recovery key, or even create several different recovery keys.

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#652
post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the same CLI, which shows all the alternative "protectors".

Again, that is a lot of trust since it could trivially just… not show it. Which is already the default for most FDE systems for intermediate/system managed keys.

It could also just pretend to encrypt your drive with a null key and not do anything, either.

You need some implicit trust in a system to use it. And at worst, you can probably reverse engineer the (unencrypted) BitLocker metadata that preboot authentication reads.

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#654
post #112

Here's a story about what the FBI may do when they don't unlock the laptop: https://cointelegraph.com/news/fbi-cant-be-blamed-for-wiping... Perhaps next time, an agent will copy the data, wipe the drive, and say they couldn't decrypt it. 10 years ago agents were charged for diverting a suspect's Bitcoin, I feel like the current leadership will demand a cut.

This is my biggest fear wrt gov't search-and-seizure. I know the police won't be able to get at my juicy encypted bits, but I also know they're vindictive basterds who'll be held to no accountability. Of course they'll wipe my drives just to get revenge for me "winning" by having blocked their access.

backups backups backups. give one to your grandma she wont crack the encrypt

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#655
post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic is bitlocker, and Microsoft, and keys. With a VM running on an encrypted file system, whatever a warrant for a bitlocker key might normally provide will be hidden behind an additional layer that Microsoft does not hold the keys to. (Determining whether that is useful or not is an exercise for the person who believes that they have something to hide.)

Wouldn't it be easier to just use bitlocker and not back up your keys with microsoft?

Sure, the plan you outline does sound very simple. And in an ideal world, that'd be perfectly fine.

Except we don't live in an ideal world.

See, for example, the fuckery alluded to above.

Therein: Linking a Microsoft account to a Windows login is something that appears to happen automatically under some circumstances, and then bitlocker keys are also automatically leaked to the mothership...

The machine is quite clearly designed with the intent that it behaves as a trap. Do you trust it?

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#656
post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be easier to just use bitlocker and not back up your keys with microsoft?

Sure, the plan you outline does sound very simple. And in an ideal world, that'd be perfectly fine. Except we don't live in an ideal world. See, for example, the fuckery alluded to above. Therein: Linking a Microsoft account to a Windows login is something that appears to happen automatically under some circumstances, and then bitlocker keys are also automatically leaked to the mothership... The machine is quite clea…

If you distrust Windows that much, isn't the only real option to just not use it?

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#657
post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear: bitlocker is NOT encrypting with your login password! I could be a little fuzzy on the details but I believe how it works is that your TPM (Trusted Platform Module) is able to decrypt your laptop, but will only do so if there is a fully signed and trusted boot chain, so if somebody gains access to your laptop and attempts to boot into anything other than Windows, it will ask for the bitlocker key be…

> nobody who is using Windows cares about encryption or even knows what it is! Right, so the solution is to silently upload their encryption keys to Microsoft's servers without telling them? If users don't understand encryption, they certainly don't understand they've just handed their keys to a third party subject to government data requests. > otherwise a regular user will happen to mess around with their bios one…

> Right, so the solution is to silently upload their encryption keys to Microsoft's servers without telling them? If users don't understand encryption, they certainly don't understand they've just handed their keys to a third party subject to government data requests.

What exactly are you hoping Windows does here? Anyone who knows anything about Bitlocker knows Microsoft has the keys (that's where you get the key when you need it, which I have needed it many times because I dual boot!) Microsoft could put a big screen on install saying 'we have your encryption keys!' — would this change literally anything? They would need to also explain what that means and what bitlocker is. And then after all of that, the only people who are going to decide 'actually I want to set up FDE myself' are going to be the technical people who already knew all of this already! This is just a non-issue.

> This is such transparent fear-mongering. How often does this actually happen versus how often are cloud providers breached or served with legal requests? You're solving a hypothetical edge case by creating an actual security vulnerability.

This is not fear mongering at all! The nice thing about Bitlocker is that you don't need to put in your key 99% of the time (and in fact 99% of Windows users — who are not technical! — don't even know they have Bitlocker). But occasionally you do need to put it in. Once or twice I've booted to the bitlocker screen and I actually don't even know why. Maybe my TPM got wiped somehow? Maybe my computer shut down in a really weird way? But it happens enough that it's clearly necessary! That big Crowdstrike screwup a year ago; one of the ways to fix it required having your Bitlocker key!

> Encryption by default and cloud key escrow are separate decisions. You can have one without the other. The fact that Microsoft chose both doesn't make the second one necessary, it makes it convenient for Microsoft.

Again, this is not true for a product like Windows where 99% of users are not technical. Remember, Bitlocker does not require your key on startup the vast majority the time! However, there is a chance that you will need the key at some point or you will be locked out of you data permanently. Where should Microsoft give the user the key? Should they say on install 'hey, write this down and don't lose it!' Any solution relying on the user is obviously a recipe for disaster. But again, let me remind you that encryption by default is important because you don't want any old random laptop thief to get access to your chrome account! So yes, I think Microsoft made the best and only choice here.

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#658
post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, that is a lot of trust since it could trivially just… not show it. Which is already the default for most FDE systems for intermediate/system managed keys.

It could also just pretend to encrypt your drive with a null key and not do anything, either. You need some implicit trust in a system to use it. And at worst, you can probably reverse engineer the (unencrypted) BitLocker metadata that preboot authentication reads.

No, that would be trivial to verify with any other operating system.

Key ring contents (and what is done with them) are typically much harder to verify as they’re encrypted.

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#659
post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the plan you outline does sound very simple. And in an ideal world, that'd be perfectly fine. Except we don't live in an ideal world. See, for example, the fuckery alluded to above. Therein: Linking a Microsoft account to a Windows login is something that appears to happen automatically under some circumstances, and then bitlocker keys are also automatically leaked to the mothership... The machine is quite clea…

If you distrust Windows that much, isn't the only real option to just not use it?

That's yet another brilliantly simple plan that you've outlined!

Would you like for me to demonstrate how it, too, is short-sighted?

Re: Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops

#660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. They can fight the warrant, if you don't at least object to it then "giving the keys away" is not an incorrect characterization.

In court? Not really. These warrants are on solid ground from a legal standpoint. To the point that fighting them could be a sanction-able kind of grandstanding.

Sanction-able? I'm not saying you shouldn't comply with a valid warrant, I'm saying that you should object to whether there was probable cause for the warrant.
Post reply on HN