Is there any reason at all to use BitLocker instead of VeraCrypt?

>>58847775
It hasn't been cracked

>>58847781
Veracrypt hasn't been cracked either?

It just werks.

Only reason to not use Bitlocker is if you're a pedo or terrorist.

File: tyrone laughing for 20 years.jpg (52KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 620x670px

>>58847785

>>58847786
Hello shill

>>58847775
Definitely not. Never use any proprietary encryption solution. Even be weary of open source encryption solutions.

>>58847775
windows full disk encryption is easy to break into
only osx and linux are secure

>>58847775
Veracrypt is literally 1/2 slower than Bitlocker.

Hell just booting up and unlocking that initial password takes like a whole minute even on the latest CPU.

>>58847786
Hey retard. Read these:
https://9to5mac.com/2012/05/07/bug-in-mac-os-x-10-7-3-exposes-passwords-in-plain-text/
https://9to5mac.com/2012/05/07/bug-in-mac-os-x-10-7-3-exposes-passwords-in-plain-text/

If you think that people aren't eventually going to find some dumbass NSA backdoor and exploiti it for their own benefit you literally deserve to be executed. You are an enemy of the USA and a terrorist.

>>58847865
>windows full disk encryption is easy to break into

except it isn't...

hello, the retards on /g/ couldn't even crack into a simple passworded zip file

bitlocker's the microsoft one right?

It's backdoored; you can't honestly look at the win10 spying bullshit and not expect all their products to have backdoors at this point.

I wouldn't even consider for a moment using any windows/microsoft software for anything business related just for this reason alone. Same deal with Google. You either use open source, or you allow megacorps to spy on your business details and commit corporate espionage against you.

>>58847896
Meant to paste this for the second link http://www.pcworld.com/article/3151396/security/apples-macos-file-encryption-easily-bypassed-without-the-latest-fixes.html

Given your platform is already spyware/adware it literally doesn't matter which one you use since the OS could just read the keys in memory.

>>58847896
thanks

File: 559540805.jpg (113KB, 509x339px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 509x339px

>>58847865
>Windows BitLocker
>need to pay a premium to use it (Ultimate or Professional editions of Windows)

>VeraCrypt
>some free of charge fork of another free of charge encryption tool whose source code is free to be MODIFIED by everyone

How can anyone trust an encryption software that can be literally CHANGED by everyone is beyond me. You might as well not use it in the first place if everyone can just change it.

Not to mention how it's literally "free", and we all know how if a software is "free" then YOU are the prodcut.

>>58847912
>without the latest fixes

WELL GEE WIZZ THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS

WHODUTHUNK OUTDATED SOFTWARE MIGHT CONTAIN VULNERABILITIES?

>>58847912
So basically apple fixed IOMMU for EFI startup and now this problem is a literal non issue

You sure showed that person.

>>58847962
You might think this guy is too blatant to be a microsoft shill; you would be wrong

>>58847962
You are retarded. Not anyone can commit changes to a project just because it is open source. Are you literally mentally challenged? Of course nobody is going to trust Joe Shmoe's fork of Bitlocker. However, when there is a team of dedicated individuals who review all proposed changes and pick and choose and improve changes going into the project, that's a completely different story.
Stop being such a retard. Having an open peer review process is what makes open source technology more secure in the long term than proprietary software ever can be.

>>58847975
If you weren't a literal retard you would understand just because they eventually fixed it doesn't excuse the fact that they were storing encryption passwords in plain text. You fucking retard.

>>58848008
It was in memory you fucking dipshit

Of course the decryption keys are in plaintext in memory.

>>58847985
The point is that these types of problems will always occur from time to time with proprietary software without any chance for the community to peer review changes that are made. Basically the only people who will ever find out about them are black hats, which is obviously really fucking bad. By contrast, with open source software, it is common for "white hats" to find and correct security vulernabilities before anyone is known to have had their data compromised.

>>58847775
> Bitlocker over VeraCrypt
Only reason I can think if is Bitlocker by AD group policy.

So, unless you're running AD, probably not.

>>58847775
Use both

File: 1486436588303.jpg (164KB, 682x1024px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 682x1024px

>>58847775
One built by a professional company with decades of experience and market reputation to uphold.

One developed by some unknown source, probably some unwashed greasy neckbeard in his basement.

Which do you trust?

>>58849016
greasy neckbeard

Truecrypt is fine.

Don't believe the FUD.

>>58847775
For poorfags who cant afford hardware encryption.

File: 1476706949483.png (442KB, 1196x796px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1196x796px

>>58847775
>Cares about encryption
>Uses windows
The fuck

>>58847775

>trusting Microsoft with your privacy

Really OP?

Veracrypt is free and don't need a fucking TPM.

>>58849043
This