Re: BitLocker (was Re: future of dual booting Windows and Fedora, redux)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, at 2:11 AM, Vojtech Trefny wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 5:53 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > Once upon a time, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>> >> My understanding is that Windows preloads are now blank-encrypted.
>> >> That is, there's a BitLocker volume wrapping the filesystem, even with
>> >> encryption turned off. It makes encrypting the disk later
>> >> significantly easier (it doesn't have to do filesystem resizing and
>> >> reallocation games).
>> >
>> > Huh, okay.  It seems cryptsetup can't open it, but dislocker can.
>>
>> You can do something like
>>
>> dd if=/dev/nvme0n1p5 skip=1024000 count=2048 2>/dev/null | hexdump -C
>>
>> And see if that 1MiB range looks like ciphertext (garbage) or plaintext. I wouldn't be surprised if it's encrypted, and the encryption key itself isn't wrapped, it's just exposed in the Bitlocker metadata in a way dislocker can discover and cryptsetup can't (yet) - but I'm speculating.
>
> This is also what happens if you choose to "decrypt" your BitLocker
> volume in Windows so if it is this case, cryptsetup doesn't support
> it. We intentionally ignored this case mostly because it looked like a
> small corner case (if you choose do decrypt the volume, Windows will
> in the end fully decrypt the data and get rid of the BitLocker
> volume/container), but if it's going to be a widespread use, we might
> need to start looking into that. As Milan said, a reproducer and an
> upstream issue for cryptsetup would be nice.
>
>>
>>
>> > But this does mean that doing anything in anaconda based on detection of
>> > BitLocker being present should consider that...
>>
>> Either libblkid or cryptsetup would need to learn how to differentiate between the two kinds of Bitlocker volumes, in order for anaconda to have a chance of treating them differently. I'm not sure what the consideration would be though.
>
> If it really is the case described above, from libblkid point of view,
> this is still BitLocker and the data is still encrypted so no
> difference in how it should be handled -- mount cannot mount it,
> ntfsresize cannot resize it so for all intents and purposes it is a
> BitLocker volume and we cannot treat it differently just because the
> volume key itself is not protected.
>

I think one of the thread responders was thinking that it would be possible to still use a GRUB menu entry for the decrypted BitLocker case.


-- 
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux