Hacker News Reader

I think your argument about 1024-bit RSA being too weak is pretty much nonsense, and nothing defends against the "evil maid" attack, which kind of misses the point of full disk encryption anyways.

TPM support would be nice, though.

View on HN

You're wrong on both counts. Even back in 2007, NIST deemed 1024-bit RSA too weak:

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-57/sp800-57-P...

And BitLocker's trusted boot path does defend against the evil maid attack:

http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-do-i-miss...

Even if you want to make some semantic argument that this doesn't strictly fall under the mantle of "disk encryption", it still proves the point that FileVault is no substitute for BitLocker.

I'm wrong on neither count. The likelihood that anyone's disk encryption is going to be broken by a brute force attack on an RSA key of any size is nil. There remain attacks on Bitlocker regardless of whether it boots from a static trusted root. And, again: the whole notion of "evil maid" attacks does miss the point of disk encryption; if you lose control of your computer, it's no longer trustworthy no matter what.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com