what's an easy and safe way to encrypt drives on widows os?
something that not even the NSA would be able to crack...
is the native BitLocker any good?
>>55179829
>widows os
>something that not even the NSA would be able to crack
Pick one
>>55179901
i cannot accept that it is impossible to write software that encrypts an uncrackable file.
>>55179947
Just use veracrypt
>>55179829
using a key as long as the file you are encrypting. So, basically, duplicating all your files. No one will ever be able to decrypt that.
>>55179947
It's not that you couldn't make it uncrackable, it's that the NSA wouldn't have to crack it if it was made on a windows.
>>55179829
do people still have to ask this in 2016? on /g/ ?
>>55180515
I think you are confusing something here. windows was actually made by microsoft
>>55179829
>safe way to encrypt drives on widows os
Well the OS and kernel are closed source and windows uses telemetry to send all kinds of personal data to microsoft. You may as well not encrypt or even set a lockscreen password. Get rid of windows or at the very least stop using it as your main OS.
>something that not even the NSA would be able to crack
Might be good to take a look on wikipedia to understand the basics of encryption. There's no such thing as unbreakable encryption. It's only a matter of time before the next "SHAppening". There are things you can do to make your drives harder to access, but you can't make them unbreakable. The NSA has more time and money than you. If they want your shit they'll get it.
>is the native BitLocker any good
No.
>>55180929
do people actually inform themselves before they post here?
"Telemetry data includes information about the device and how it's configured (including hardware attributes such as CPU, installed memory, and storage), as well as quality-related information such as uptime and sleep details and the number of crashes or hangs. Additional basic information includes a list of installed apps and drivers."
put it to basic and microsoft wont even know how you interact with your programs/system. Done.
if you wanna completely block them, then go ahead and block them in the firewall. whats so hard about that?
"Microsoft maintains potentially sensitive telemetry data "in a separate data store that's locked down to a small subset of Microsoft employees in the Windows Devices Group.""
>Might be good to take a look on wikipedia to understand the basics of encryption. There's no such thing as unbreakable encryption. It's only a matter of time before the next "SHAppening".
right now the estimated time it takes to decode such encryption is "over a lifetime". and if you would inform yourself even SLIGHTLY you would find that CPU's already reached their end. moores law broke down and there is no way on earth anyone would ever be able to decode that shit.
>The NSA has more time and money than you.
being so naive and thinking that the NSA would use their supercomputers to crack a harddrive.. and even if they did it would still take over a lifetime
>is the native BitLocker any good
>No.
why do you say that? do you have an proof, and i mean PROOF that it isnt good except for some stupid article that some skiddie wrote that says otherwise?
>>55180929
Right? I mean what's stopping Microsoft or an attacker from copying your private keys (if you're stupid enough to leave it on the computer). Why not take a hardware approach via a dongle?
>>55181229
>Wut is quantum computing
>Wut is She's algorithm
>Wut is cryptography
Shut the heck up.
>>55182127
>Wut is quantum computing
is this nigger serious?
>>55179829
>easy and safe
yeah bitlocker works however it'll save your data from tyrone but not from the NSA
>>55182216
>No way anyone on Earth will ever be able to crack SHA in its current implementation
But Shor's algorithm will crack SHA when quantum computing leaves infancy.
>>55182281
>when
>>55182298
20 years like fusion
>>55182317
so you are saying op is safe when using encryption ?
>>55182320
Until the NSA has a quantum computer that can run Shor's Algorithm then sure if his key is long enough, but not on windoze.
>>55182355
No they do not. are you fucking high? quantum computers are still in a very, very, very early and very experimental stage
>>55182360
Can you read? I said until they have that.
>>55182431
What i read was this post >>55182127, which was made by you and clearly implies that you disagree with my above post and it also implies that there quantum computers who can crack encryptions using shor's algorithm
OP on the other hand asked if windows is safe for encryptions. ill answer for him again
>Yes
there are no quantum computers that can crack encryption and thats all the information we need. im going to bed
>>55182457
You don't even need a quantum computer to crack encryption on Windows though.
>>55182281
> SHA
This is trolling, right? You can't 'crack' a one way hashing function.
Shor's is useful for factoring the semiprimes used in RSA, though.
>>55179829
Nobody cares about your shitty porn collection. Just use Veracrypt. If you are really worried, keep a shredder around that can eat whatever storage device you worry about.
>>55179947
You totally can, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference when your operating system almost certainly has multiple backdoors and possibly even keyloggers.
>>55181644
private keys aren't stored on the pc.. are they?
