Microsoft terminates VeraCrypt account, halting Windows updates

Post by arcfour » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

romaniv wrote: post #22

I still hope that one of these days people in general will realize that executable signing and SecureBoot are specifically designed for controlling what a normal person can run, rather than for anything resembling real security. The premises of either of those "mitigations" make absolutely no sense for personal computers.

Post by the__alchemist » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:50 PM UTC

samlinnfer wrote: post #36

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tradeoffs. Which is more likely here? 1. A customer wants to run their own firmware, or 2. Someone malicious close to the customer, an angry ex, tampers with their device, and uses the lack of Secure Boot to modify the OS to hide all trace of a tracker's existence, or 3. A malicious piece of firmware uses the lack of Secure Boot to modify the boot partition to ensure the malware loads before the OS, thereby permanent…

1. P(someone wants to run their own firmware) 2. P(someone wants to run their own firmware) * P(this person is malicious) * P(this person implants this firmware on someone else’s computer) 3. The firmware doesn’t install itself Yeah I think 2 and 3 is vastly less likely and strictly lower than 1.

Post by unethical_ban » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:54 PM UTC

p_ing wrote: post #88

unethical_ban wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's easier, and bitlocker doesn't count. I want my FDE to be based on a password or a keyfile, not simply by some code in the motherboard. I want it encrypted until I, the operator, provide some data to unlock. In my limited experience with bitlocker, the disk is decryptable automatically as long as it's in the original motherboard.

> and bitlocker doesn't count. Wat? Bitlocker is the answer to your question. > In my limited experience with bitlocker, the disk is decryptable automatically as long as it's in the original motherboard. It's unlocked (not decrypted) when the OS boots, yes. You can optionally enforce (not on Home) other unlock methods, such as PIN before the OS boots. > I want my FDE to be based on a password or a keyfile, not simply…

Post by serf » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:58 PM UTC

arcfour wrote: post #91

romaniv wrote: post #22

I still hope that one of these days people in general will realize that executable signing and SecureBoot are specifically designed for controlling what a normal person can run, rather than for anything resembling real security. The premises of either of those "mitigations" make absolutely no sense for personal computers.

I strongly disagree on the Secure Boot front. It's necessary for FDE to have any sort of practical security, it reduces malicious/vulnerable driver abuse (making it nontrivial), bootkits are a security nightmare and would otherwise be much more common in malware typical users encounter, and ultimately the user can control their secure boot setup and enroll their own keys if they wish. Does that mean that Microsoft do…

Post by arcfour » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #94

arcfour wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree on the Secure Boot front. It's necessary for FDE to have any sort of practical security, it reduces malicious/vulnerable driver abuse (making it nontrivial), bootkits are a security nightmare and would otherwise be much more common in malware typical users encounter, and ultimately the user can control their secure boot setup and enroll their own keys if they wish. Does that mean that Microsoft do…

Anything that restricts user freedom is entirely bad, even if it's at the expense of security.