Why does BitLocker not use RSA? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar...
Vertical ranges of Column Plots in 12
By what mechanism was the 2017 UK General Election called?
Is the time—manner—place ordering of adverbials an oversimplification?
How to achieve cat-like agility?
How can I list files in reverse time order by a command and pass them as arguments to another command?
Any stored/leased 737s that could substitute for grounded MAXs?
Where and when has Thucydides been studied?
Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?
When does a function NOT have an antiderivative?
newbie Q : How to read an output file in one command line
Sally's older brother
3D Masyu - A Die
How to name indistinguishable henchmen in a screenplay?
My mentor says to set image to Fine instead of RAW — how is this different from JPG?
Why are current probes so expensive?
Is the Mordenkainen's Sword spell underpowered?
.bashrc alias for a command with fixed second parameter
One-one communication
Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?
How to ask rejected full-time candidates to apply to teach individual courses?
Understanding piped commands in GNU/Linux
How to make an animal which can only breed for a certain number of generations?
NIntegrate on a solution of a matrix ODE
How does the body cool itself in a stillsuit?
Why does BitLocker not use RSA?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Should RSA public exponent be only in {3, 5, 17, 257 or 65537} due to security considerations?Securely read encryption key from NVRAM of TPM 1.2Methods of cold boot attacks in the wildClarification of RSA Key Exchange (TLS 1.2) and AES for On-Going Message ExcahngeShould I really salt in a RSA/AES hybrid connection?Anniversary Update with Bitlocker Reboot without Encryption KeyIs it possible to extract secrets from a TPM without knowing the PIN?Security of TPM 1.2 for providing tamper-evidence against firmware modificationHow does full memory encryption in newer processes protect against DMA attacks?How does Bitlocker + TPM prevent me seeing the HDD contents with another OS?Is GPG's AES encryption that much stronger than its RSA headers?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
If I do not understand wrong from this post and Wikipedia page of the BitLocker and TPM, by default, BitLocker uses symmetric cryptography like AES. However, TPM is capable of performing RSA encryption.
Given that, the RSA key is stored in the TPM, why BitLocker does not use the asymmetric encryption (i.e., RSA)? By using such encryption technique, we might be able to defend against the cold boot attack or sniffing on LPC bus.
aes rsa tpm bitlocker cold-boot-attack
New contributor
add a comment |
If I do not understand wrong from this post and Wikipedia page of the BitLocker and TPM, by default, BitLocker uses symmetric cryptography like AES. However, TPM is capable of performing RSA encryption.
Given that, the RSA key is stored in the TPM, why BitLocker does not use the asymmetric encryption (i.e., RSA)? By using such encryption technique, we might be able to defend against the cold boot attack or sniffing on LPC bus.
aes rsa tpm bitlocker cold-boot-attack
New contributor
8
How would using asymmetric encryption even help? Unless you never intend to write any data to the disk, you would need to have both sides of the key in memory in order to use the disk anyway. (I suppose there are special cases where you'd want a disk anyone can read but with strong authentication of its content -- but even there encrypting each block separately with an asymmetric primitive would not be the solution of choice).
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
add a comment |
If I do not understand wrong from this post and Wikipedia page of the BitLocker and TPM, by default, BitLocker uses symmetric cryptography like AES. However, TPM is capable of performing RSA encryption.
Given that, the RSA key is stored in the TPM, why BitLocker does not use the asymmetric encryption (i.e., RSA)? By using such encryption technique, we might be able to defend against the cold boot attack or sniffing on LPC bus.
aes rsa tpm bitlocker cold-boot-attack
New contributor
If I do not understand wrong from this post and Wikipedia page of the BitLocker and TPM, by default, BitLocker uses symmetric cryptography like AES. However, TPM is capable of performing RSA encryption.
Given that, the RSA key is stored in the TPM, why BitLocker does not use the asymmetric encryption (i.e., RSA)? By using such encryption technique, we might be able to defend against the cold boot attack or sniffing on LPC bus.
aes rsa tpm bitlocker cold-boot-attack
aes rsa tpm bitlocker cold-boot-attack
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
chrki
1053
1053
New contributor
asked yesterday
user3862410user3862410
315
315
New contributor
New contributor
8
How would using asymmetric encryption even help? Unless you never intend to write any data to the disk, you would need to have both sides of the key in memory in order to use the disk anyway. (I suppose there are special cases where you'd want a disk anyone can read but with strong authentication of its content -- but even there encrypting each block separately with an asymmetric primitive would not be the solution of choice).
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
add a comment |
8
How would using asymmetric encryption even help? Unless you never intend to write any data to the disk, you would need to have both sides of the key in memory in order to use the disk anyway. (I suppose there are special cases where you'd want a disk anyone can read but with strong authentication of its content -- but even there encrypting each block separately with an asymmetric primitive would not be the solution of choice).
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
8
8
How would using asymmetric encryption even help? Unless you never intend to write any data to the disk, you would need to have both sides of the key in memory in order to use the disk anyway. (I suppose there are special cases where you'd want a disk anyone can read but with strong authentication of its content -- but even there encrypting each block separately with an asymmetric primitive would not be the solution of choice).
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
How would using asymmetric encryption even help? Unless you never intend to write any data to the disk, you would need to have both sides of the key in memory in order to use the disk anyway. (I suppose there are special cases where you'd want a disk anyone can read but with strong authentication of its content -- but even there encrypting each block separately with an asymmetric primitive would not be the solution of choice).
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Asymmetric encryption is vastly inferior to symmetric encryption. That is, in all respects, except one -- being asymmetric. When that property is needed, there's no way around it, obviously.
Asymmetric encryption is much slower. It is much more susceptible to showing recognizable patterns of some kind given non-random input. You need much larger key sizes to provide an adequate level of protection, and the system is much more vulnerable in general with current and future technology (reasonably-sized quantum computers will basically mean instant death for RSA, but AES is pretty much "yeah, so what" in that respect).
That's the reason why asymmetric encryption is almost never used to encrypt bulk data.
Nothing prevents you from encrypting a terabyte of data with RSA using 2048 bit chunks, much like you encrypt a terabyte with AES in 128 bit chunks. Only just, it doesn't make sense to do that because it is several thousand times slower, and at the same time is much more insecure.
vastly inferior? Compare the expand of cryptography after invention on Asymmetric Cryptography.
– kelalaka
15 hours ago
2
@kelalaka For communication.
– wizzwizz4
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Asymmetric encryption like RSA is limited in that you can only use it to encrypt data the size of the key. With a 2048 bit key, you can only encrypt 2048 bits of information. For this reason RSA is unsuitable for bulk encryption like disks - and even for small files like email messages.
This is why almost all uses of asymmetric encryption involve "hybrid encryption". RSA is used to encrypt the key for a symmetric algorithm like AES, and AES is used to encrypt the bulk data. PGP is an example of a hybrid encryption application.
Correction - as @HenningMakholm points out in the comments, it isn't that asymmetric can't be chained to handle larger blocks of data the way symmetric algorithms do, it's that doing so is impractical from a performance point of view. The end effect is the same, but the mechanism is different.
9
And AES can only encrypt 128 bits of information. There are well-known solutions to using AES for larger amounts of data, and some of them could be applied with RSA as the underlying primitive instead of AES. Performance would be dismal, though, which is the real reason why this is not done.
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
3
I'm not sure why this answer has so many upvotes, it's flat-out wrong. That's not the difference between RSA and AES, it's the difference between block-ciphers (including both RSA and AES) and stream ciphers. And it's not even a big deal, since you can easily turn any block cipher into a stream cipher using the various modes.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The coldboot attack can be performed on any encryption scheme as long as the keys are residing on the memory. For full-disk encryption (FDE) with symmetric algorithms like AES , you will need to take out the key from the TPM, where you will be applicable to coldboot attack.
Though the TPM is capable of RSA encryption and decryptions, for FDE the RSA has problems, in short the speed;
- RSA must use AOEP scheme to be secure which reduces the message size.
- To speed up the public key encryption the public key is selected as 3, 5, ... However, the decryption to access one block will be much more slower even you use CRT to gain 4x speed.
- Even the TPM can perform RSA encryption on the chip, it will be much slower for Full Disk Encryption (FDE).
Therefore, TPM based FDEs use TPM as a key storage.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "162"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user3862410 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207771%2fwhy-does-bitlocker-not-use-rsa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Asymmetric encryption is vastly inferior to symmetric encryption. That is, in all respects, except one -- being asymmetric. When that property is needed, there's no way around it, obviously.
Asymmetric encryption is much slower. It is much more susceptible to showing recognizable patterns of some kind given non-random input. You need much larger key sizes to provide an adequate level of protection, and the system is much more vulnerable in general with current and future technology (reasonably-sized quantum computers will basically mean instant death for RSA, but AES is pretty much "yeah, so what" in that respect).
That's the reason why asymmetric encryption is almost never used to encrypt bulk data.
Nothing prevents you from encrypting a terabyte of data with RSA using 2048 bit chunks, much like you encrypt a terabyte with AES in 128 bit chunks. Only just, it doesn't make sense to do that because it is several thousand times slower, and at the same time is much more insecure.
vastly inferior? Compare the expand of cryptography after invention on Asymmetric Cryptography.
– kelalaka
15 hours ago
2
@kelalaka For communication.
– wizzwizz4
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Asymmetric encryption is vastly inferior to symmetric encryption. That is, in all respects, except one -- being asymmetric. When that property is needed, there's no way around it, obviously.
Asymmetric encryption is much slower. It is much more susceptible to showing recognizable patterns of some kind given non-random input. You need much larger key sizes to provide an adequate level of protection, and the system is much more vulnerable in general with current and future technology (reasonably-sized quantum computers will basically mean instant death for RSA, but AES is pretty much "yeah, so what" in that respect).
That's the reason why asymmetric encryption is almost never used to encrypt bulk data.
Nothing prevents you from encrypting a terabyte of data with RSA using 2048 bit chunks, much like you encrypt a terabyte with AES in 128 bit chunks. Only just, it doesn't make sense to do that because it is several thousand times slower, and at the same time is much more insecure.
vastly inferior? Compare the expand of cryptography after invention on Asymmetric Cryptography.
– kelalaka
15 hours ago
2
@kelalaka For communication.
– wizzwizz4
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Asymmetric encryption is vastly inferior to symmetric encryption. That is, in all respects, except one -- being asymmetric. When that property is needed, there's no way around it, obviously.
Asymmetric encryption is much slower. It is much more susceptible to showing recognizable patterns of some kind given non-random input. You need much larger key sizes to provide an adequate level of protection, and the system is much more vulnerable in general with current and future technology (reasonably-sized quantum computers will basically mean instant death for RSA, but AES is pretty much "yeah, so what" in that respect).
That's the reason why asymmetric encryption is almost never used to encrypt bulk data.
Nothing prevents you from encrypting a terabyte of data with RSA using 2048 bit chunks, much like you encrypt a terabyte with AES in 128 bit chunks. Only just, it doesn't make sense to do that because it is several thousand times slower, and at the same time is much more insecure.
Asymmetric encryption is vastly inferior to symmetric encryption. That is, in all respects, except one -- being asymmetric. When that property is needed, there's no way around it, obviously.
Asymmetric encryption is much slower. It is much more susceptible to showing recognizable patterns of some kind given non-random input. You need much larger key sizes to provide an adequate level of protection, and the system is much more vulnerable in general with current and future technology (reasonably-sized quantum computers will basically mean instant death for RSA, but AES is pretty much "yeah, so what" in that respect).
That's the reason why asymmetric encryption is almost never used to encrypt bulk data.
Nothing prevents you from encrypting a terabyte of data with RSA using 2048 bit chunks, much like you encrypt a terabyte with AES in 128 bit chunks. Only just, it doesn't make sense to do that because it is several thousand times slower, and at the same time is much more insecure.
answered 16 hours ago
DamonDamon
3,357918
3,357918
vastly inferior? Compare the expand of cryptography after invention on Asymmetric Cryptography.
– kelalaka
15 hours ago
2
@kelalaka For communication.
– wizzwizz4
6 hours ago
add a comment |
vastly inferior? Compare the expand of cryptography after invention on Asymmetric Cryptography.
– kelalaka
15 hours ago
2
@kelalaka For communication.
– wizzwizz4
6 hours ago
vastly inferior? Compare the expand of cryptography after invention on Asymmetric Cryptography.
– kelalaka
15 hours ago
vastly inferior? Compare the expand of cryptography after invention on Asymmetric Cryptography.
– kelalaka
15 hours ago
2
2
@kelalaka For communication.
– wizzwizz4
6 hours ago
@kelalaka For communication.
– wizzwizz4
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Asymmetric encryption like RSA is limited in that you can only use it to encrypt data the size of the key. With a 2048 bit key, you can only encrypt 2048 bits of information. For this reason RSA is unsuitable for bulk encryption like disks - and even for small files like email messages.
This is why almost all uses of asymmetric encryption involve "hybrid encryption". RSA is used to encrypt the key for a symmetric algorithm like AES, and AES is used to encrypt the bulk data. PGP is an example of a hybrid encryption application.
Correction - as @HenningMakholm points out in the comments, it isn't that asymmetric can't be chained to handle larger blocks of data the way symmetric algorithms do, it's that doing so is impractical from a performance point of view. The end effect is the same, but the mechanism is different.
9
And AES can only encrypt 128 bits of information. There are well-known solutions to using AES for larger amounts of data, and some of them could be applied with RSA as the underlying primitive instead of AES. Performance would be dismal, though, which is the real reason why this is not done.
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
3
I'm not sure why this answer has so many upvotes, it's flat-out wrong. That's not the difference between RSA and AES, it's the difference between block-ciphers (including both RSA and AES) and stream ciphers. And it's not even a big deal, since you can easily turn any block cipher into a stream cipher using the various modes.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Asymmetric encryption like RSA is limited in that you can only use it to encrypt data the size of the key. With a 2048 bit key, you can only encrypt 2048 bits of information. For this reason RSA is unsuitable for bulk encryption like disks - and even for small files like email messages.
This is why almost all uses of asymmetric encryption involve "hybrid encryption". RSA is used to encrypt the key for a symmetric algorithm like AES, and AES is used to encrypt the bulk data. PGP is an example of a hybrid encryption application.
Correction - as @HenningMakholm points out in the comments, it isn't that asymmetric can't be chained to handle larger blocks of data the way symmetric algorithms do, it's that doing so is impractical from a performance point of view. The end effect is the same, but the mechanism is different.
9
And AES can only encrypt 128 bits of information. There are well-known solutions to using AES for larger amounts of data, and some of them could be applied with RSA as the underlying primitive instead of AES. Performance would be dismal, though, which is the real reason why this is not done.
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
3
I'm not sure why this answer has so many upvotes, it's flat-out wrong. That's not the difference between RSA and AES, it's the difference between block-ciphers (including both RSA and AES) and stream ciphers. And it's not even a big deal, since you can easily turn any block cipher into a stream cipher using the various modes.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Asymmetric encryption like RSA is limited in that you can only use it to encrypt data the size of the key. With a 2048 bit key, you can only encrypt 2048 bits of information. For this reason RSA is unsuitable for bulk encryption like disks - and even for small files like email messages.
This is why almost all uses of asymmetric encryption involve "hybrid encryption". RSA is used to encrypt the key for a symmetric algorithm like AES, and AES is used to encrypt the bulk data. PGP is an example of a hybrid encryption application.
Correction - as @HenningMakholm points out in the comments, it isn't that asymmetric can't be chained to handle larger blocks of data the way symmetric algorithms do, it's that doing so is impractical from a performance point of view. The end effect is the same, but the mechanism is different.
Asymmetric encryption like RSA is limited in that you can only use it to encrypt data the size of the key. With a 2048 bit key, you can only encrypt 2048 bits of information. For this reason RSA is unsuitable for bulk encryption like disks - and even for small files like email messages.
This is why almost all uses of asymmetric encryption involve "hybrid encryption". RSA is used to encrypt the key for a symmetric algorithm like AES, and AES is used to encrypt the bulk data. PGP is an example of a hybrid encryption application.
Correction - as @HenningMakholm points out in the comments, it isn't that asymmetric can't be chained to handle larger blocks of data the way symmetric algorithms do, it's that doing so is impractical from a performance point of view. The end effect is the same, but the mechanism is different.
edited 14 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
gowenfawrgowenfawr
55k11115163
55k11115163
9
And AES can only encrypt 128 bits of information. There are well-known solutions to using AES for larger amounts of data, and some of them could be applied with RSA as the underlying primitive instead of AES. Performance would be dismal, though, which is the real reason why this is not done.
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
3
I'm not sure why this answer has so many upvotes, it's flat-out wrong. That's not the difference between RSA and AES, it's the difference between block-ciphers (including both RSA and AES) and stream ciphers. And it's not even a big deal, since you can easily turn any block cipher into a stream cipher using the various modes.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
6 hours ago
add a comment |
9
And AES can only encrypt 128 bits of information. There are well-known solutions to using AES for larger amounts of data, and some of them could be applied with RSA as the underlying primitive instead of AES. Performance would be dismal, though, which is the real reason why this is not done.
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
3
I'm not sure why this answer has so many upvotes, it's flat-out wrong. That's not the difference between RSA and AES, it's the difference between block-ciphers (including both RSA and AES) and stream ciphers. And it's not even a big deal, since you can easily turn any block cipher into a stream cipher using the various modes.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
6 hours ago
9
9
And AES can only encrypt 128 bits of information. There are well-known solutions to using AES for larger amounts of data, and some of them could be applied with RSA as the underlying primitive instead of AES. Performance would be dismal, though, which is the real reason why this is not done.
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
And AES can only encrypt 128 bits of information. There are well-known solutions to using AES for larger amounts of data, and some of them could be applied with RSA as the underlying primitive instead of AES. Performance would be dismal, though, which is the real reason why this is not done.
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago
3
3
I'm not sure why this answer has so many upvotes, it's flat-out wrong. That's not the difference between RSA and AES, it's the difference between block-ciphers (including both RSA and AES) and stream ciphers. And it's not even a big deal, since you can easily turn any block cipher into a stream cipher using the various modes.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
6 hours ago
I'm not sure why this answer has so many upvotes, it's flat-out wrong. That's not the difference between RSA and AES, it's the difference between block-ciphers (including both RSA and AES) and stream ciphers. And it's not even a big deal, since you can easily turn any block cipher into a stream cipher using the various modes.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The coldboot attack can be performed on any encryption scheme as long as the keys are residing on the memory. For full-disk encryption (FDE) with symmetric algorithms like AES , you will need to take out the key from the TPM, where you will be applicable to coldboot attack.
Though the TPM is capable of RSA encryption and decryptions, for FDE the RSA has problems, in short the speed;
- RSA must use AOEP scheme to be secure which reduces the message size.
- To speed up the public key encryption the public key is selected as 3, 5, ... However, the decryption to access one block will be much more slower even you use CRT to gain 4x speed.
- Even the TPM can perform RSA encryption on the chip, it will be much slower for Full Disk Encryption (FDE).
Therefore, TPM based FDEs use TPM as a key storage.
add a comment |
The coldboot attack can be performed on any encryption scheme as long as the keys are residing on the memory. For full-disk encryption (FDE) with symmetric algorithms like AES , you will need to take out the key from the TPM, where you will be applicable to coldboot attack.
Though the TPM is capable of RSA encryption and decryptions, for FDE the RSA has problems, in short the speed;
- RSA must use AOEP scheme to be secure which reduces the message size.
- To speed up the public key encryption the public key is selected as 3, 5, ... However, the decryption to access one block will be much more slower even you use CRT to gain 4x speed.
- Even the TPM can perform RSA encryption on the chip, it will be much slower for Full Disk Encryption (FDE).
Therefore, TPM based FDEs use TPM as a key storage.
add a comment |
The coldboot attack can be performed on any encryption scheme as long as the keys are residing on the memory. For full-disk encryption (FDE) with symmetric algorithms like AES , you will need to take out the key from the TPM, where you will be applicable to coldboot attack.
Though the TPM is capable of RSA encryption and decryptions, for FDE the RSA has problems, in short the speed;
- RSA must use AOEP scheme to be secure which reduces the message size.
- To speed up the public key encryption the public key is selected as 3, 5, ... However, the decryption to access one block will be much more slower even you use CRT to gain 4x speed.
- Even the TPM can perform RSA encryption on the chip, it will be much slower for Full Disk Encryption (FDE).
Therefore, TPM based FDEs use TPM as a key storage.
The coldboot attack can be performed on any encryption scheme as long as the keys are residing on the memory. For full-disk encryption (FDE) with symmetric algorithms like AES , you will need to take out the key from the TPM, where you will be applicable to coldboot attack.
Though the TPM is capable of RSA encryption and decryptions, for FDE the RSA has problems, in short the speed;
- RSA must use AOEP scheme to be secure which reduces the message size.
- To speed up the public key encryption the public key is selected as 3, 5, ... However, the decryption to access one block will be much more slower even you use CRT to gain 4x speed.
- Even the TPM can perform RSA encryption on the chip, it will be much slower for Full Disk Encryption (FDE).
Therefore, TPM based FDEs use TPM as a key storage.
answered 15 hours ago
kelalakakelalaka
1,2352817
1,2352817
add a comment |
add a comment |
user3862410 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3862410 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3862410 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3862410 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207771%2fwhy-does-bitlocker-not-use-rsa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
How would using asymmetric encryption even help? Unless you never intend to write any data to the disk, you would need to have both sides of the key in memory in order to use the disk anyway. (I suppose there are special cases where you'd want a disk anyone can read but with strong authentication of its content -- but even there encrypting each block separately with an asymmetric primitive would not be the solution of choice).
– Henning Makholm
17 hours ago