News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by Tomte on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @05:18PM (#7813023)
I choose to believe Niels Ferguson when he says "Over my dead body.": http://blogs.msdn.com/b/si_team/archive/2006/03/02/542590.as...
Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by alextgordon on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @06:57PM (#7813520)
If I were the NSA, I'd try to get one of my hundreds of world-class cryptographers a job on the BitLocker team.

In fact, BitLocker would be the first thing I'd weaken. Because

1) It's closed source, hard to externally audit.

2) It's one of the most used encryption packages in the world.

3) Microsoft's poor security track record provides excellent cover if the weakness is ever found.

Closed-source security software is a recipe for disaster.

Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by mschuster91 on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @05:28PM (#7813088)
A NSL is powerful enough to render all this moot. Therein lies the great danger of NSLs.
Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by Alupis on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @05:30PM (#7813099)
2 things.

1) Obviously I was joking in my comment above.

2) That post is dated well before common knowledge of how "in-bed" Microsoft is with the USA spy agencies (at least management is).

This is a topic for another discussion, but I just want to point out that, of course someone being coerced under gag order to install less-than above-water "features" and/or purposefully weaken the product would say exactly what is in the blog post.

Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by r0muald on Thursday May 29, 2014 @05:18AM (#7815414)
> Over my dead body.

> Well, maybe not literally---I’m not ready to be a martyr quite yet

So, in short he's written 8 years ago that in principle he was totally against backdoors. Times have changed so much that a statement of that tone is almost entirely useless IMHO.