Because Microsoft has such a stellar record when it comes to bug-free code…

azrael-
Because Microsoft has such a stellar record when it comes to bug-free code…

That doesn't exonerate the SSD manufacturers.

Because one doesn't have a stellar record doesn't excuse the issues found in others.

Fantastic straw-man argument there azrael.

It's a great shame the people tasked with implementing security have such a poor understanding with the fundamentals (such as not using a generic password for everybody).

More importantly - should we trust any closed & proprietary security platform that has no credible, comprehensive and continuous independent security auditing, regardless of manufacturer?

Tabbykatze
That doesn't exonerate the SSD manufacturers.

Because one doesn't have a stellar record doesn't excuse the issues found in others.

I quite agree with you on this. It's just with all the bungled updates, bugs and what not courtesy of Microsoft they probably shouldn't pretend to know better. I orginally intended to state “Pot, meet Kettle”. Perhaps I should have.

Dashers
Fantastic straw-man argument there azrael.

It's a great shame the people tasked with implementing security have such a poor understanding with the fundamentals (such as not using a generic password for everybody).

Not quite sure what you mean with “straw-man argument”. I'm not defending manufacturers of SSDs. I just believe Microsoft should take care of their own flaws before pointing the finger.

chinf
More importantly - should we trust any closed & proprietary security platform that has no credible, comprehensive and continuous independent security auditing, regardless of manufacturer?

Very well said, tbh.

azrael-
I quite agree with you on this. It's just with all the bungled updates, bugs and what not courtesy of Microsoft they probably shouldn't pretend to know better. I orginally intended to state “Pot, meet Kettle”. Perhaps I should have.

There's a big difference between bugs in millions of lines of code and secure enclave having a bug that allows you to reset all the encryption keys on a drive giving you full access to the encrypted contents.

So…if one has a drive that they have deemed untrustworthy, does bitlocker need turning off and on again to benefit from the update?

Tabbykatze
There's a big difference between bugs in millions of lines of code and secure enclave having a bug that allows you to reset all the encryption keys on a drive giving you full access to the encrypted contents.

Not really. I'm saying this as a developer …fighting bugs on a daily basis. A bug is a bug.

TBH, if I really wanted software encryption I'd probably use VeraCrypt. At least that *is* open source and independently audited.

azrael-
Not really. I'm saying this as a developer …fighting bugs on a daily basis. A bug is a bug.

TBH, if I really wanted software encryption I'd probably use VeraCrypt. At least that *is* open source and independently audited.

Bitlocker is independently audited and is trusted as an industry standard for Windows products, just as FileVault 2 is for Mac.

Just because it's “Open Source” does not make it better or even more trustworthy, look at OpenSSL and Heartbleed.

As a developer, then you should know the difference between a bug causing an issue and an egregious design flaw resulting in security being classified as “null”.

Tabbykatze
Bitlocker is independently audited and is trusted as an industry standard for Windows products, just as FileVault 2 is for Mac.

Just because it's “Open Source” does not make it better or even more trustworthy, look at OpenSSL and Heartbleed.

As a developer, then you should know the difference between a bug causing an issue and an egregious design flaw resulting in security being classified as “null”.

I've never tried mentioned software. As it is free and included as a feature on Windows it doesn't seem like the best option. I think that it's better to try some third part solutions for higher security. For example, Nordlocker is a great tool to help with this matter.