Okay, yes, sure. It definitely is the most-used encryption software for Windows.

But I would never trust it a second, being proprietary and known for issues. You likely know that, but for the benefit of others:

38C3 - Windows BitLocker: Screwed without a Screwdriver https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-windows-bitlocker-screwed-withou... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eNtT2p12cM

▲

noinsight an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If you’re at all serious about security and not user convenience, you deploy BitLocker with a PIN instead of TPM only. And then a whole class of vulnerabilities goes away.

	▲	solenoid0937 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's probably all security theater. There's only so much trust you can put into some shitty vendor's TPM implementation

▲

bri3d an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The issues you linked with BitLocker are obvious properties of BitLocker-with-SecureBoot-only architecture. If you configure Linux that way, you get similar issues (for example, it's pretty easy to mis-configure TPM sealed disk encryption on Linux to still allow a recovery shell, which will run with the disk unsealed).

BitLocker with a password (the equivalent of the LUKS configuration in question) does not share these issues.

	▲	veeti 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Bitlocker with a password has always felt like a second class citizen to me. You have to dig into a bunch of group policies to use it. Maybe most people don't even realize it exists.

▲

saidnooneever an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

veracrypt lost their drivers license so afaik you should avoid it since it cannot update its drivers any longer. didnt see any news about them reacquiring that license

	▲	snailmailman an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Assuming this is what you are referring to, it was resolved within a few days. The incident being resolved just didn't make headlines. https://sourceforge.net/p/veracrypt/discussion/general/threa...