![]() | BitLocker has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 25, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The usage of boot and system partitions was reversed - the boot drive has the OS, whereas the system drive has ntldr. It's counter-intuitive. See the linked article System partition and boot partition SenorBeef 01:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
New Research Result: Cold Boot Attacks on Disk Encryption —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.121.18 ( talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Microsoft sources,[6] BitLocker does not contain an intentionally built-in backdoor; there is no way for law enforcement to have a guaranteed passage to the data on the user's drives that is provided by Microsoft. This has been one of the main concerns among power-users since the announcement of built-in encryption in Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.41.220 ( talk) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't understand either of these two sentences:
Could a knowledgeable person expand on both statements? They both need more explanation. Tempshill ( talk) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There should be a section about BitLocker compatibility with NTFS Compression. Are they compatible? It should be discussed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.26.167 ( talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
NOTHING on the performance hit?? Why NOT! ? 71.31.154.68 ( talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
On February 25th, Cryptome released LE(Law Enforcement) sensitive documents regarding security in WIN7 that allows anyone to get access to the key to any BitLocker locked drive by going to C:\Windows\system32 in a command prompt and entering manage-bde-protectors -get c:. The original file comes from http://publicintelligence.net/microsoft-windows-7vista-advanced-forensics-guides-for-law-enforcement/. It seems like information that would be useful in the public domain, or at least help convince Microsoft to close the loophole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avialexander ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
CBC = Cipher Block Chaining. That means that any block of ciphertext depends on all the blocks before. As BitLocker is used to encrypt a whole drive (!!) isn't this mode infeasible? I mean flip a single bit in sector 1 and have every following sector reencrypted? Most drive encryption utilities use CTR mode for this reason. I don't want to express any doubt on BitLocker using CBC, but are there any details of how exactly this block cipher mode of operation is used in practice? 217.94.192.205 ( talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The cold boot section for TPM only is perhaps not well explained. From what I can tell (and reading the paper), what's being said is you can recover the keys at any time. This seems rather obvious, if you don't require a password or something from the user to decrypt but get the keys from something on the computer, then you can decrypt the content at any time. I guess the point here is you don't have to work out some way to break in to the machine if you don't know the logon password (although I would think it obvious a logon password is little protection if the data is decrypted) and more importantly you don't have to logon (or properly start Windows?) and risk contaminating data (since any decent forensics expert is going to want to make an image rather then working on the original data). I personally wouldn't call this a cold boot attack (although the paper does so I guess we have to follow). You are just relying on the fact the keys can be recovered at any time without requiring something from the user by design although perhaps a cold boot attack is needed (I'm a bit unclear on the process, it may be what's being described is start up the computer, let it load the keys, do a hard shut down then a cold boot attack although you could also do other things like try to read the RAM while the computer is running or whatever albeit these are likely to be more difficult). Nil Einne ( talk) 03:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
According to [2], which isn't a great RS, at least one computer vendor regularly implements some sort of master password they can provide to decrypt the data which caries obvious security implications. Nil Einne ( talk) 03:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There are at least three problems with the following paragraph in the article:
'Notwithstanding the claims of Niels Ferguson and others, Microsoft Services states in Exploration of Windows 7, Advanced Forensics Topic (page 70), "BitLocker has a number of 'Recovery' scenarios that we can exploit", and "BitLocker, at its core, is a password technology, we simply have to get the password...".'
1) It is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy regarding linking to unlicensed copyrighted works, as detailed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works,
2) It dishonestly represents the original content by truncating the quoted text, removing the qualifying context,
3) It is contradictory to other established content in the article, which indicates that there are "TPM + USB Key" and "USB Key" modes of operation, which do not involve a PIN or a password.
Mhalcrow ( talk) 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
BitLocker is either full disk, or full volume encryption, but not both. First paragraph starts as BitLocker Drive Encryption is a full disk encryption feature..., but later on states It is designed to protect data by providing encryption for entire volumes.
BitLocker, technically is a full volume encryption. It cannot encrypt a full disk. 207.87.238.194 ( talk) 14:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Rabbit hole. Yes, there are full disk encryption drives. BitLocker is the topic. BitLocker encrypts volumes, not drives. Either present it incorrectly as whole disk encryption, or correctly as whole volume encryption. 207.87.238.194 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 07:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
BitLocker Drive Encryption → BitLocker – Hi. As you might know, Wikipedia naming policy states that commonly used names are preferred over official names. I've never seen the phrase "BitLocker Drive Encryption" used outside Microsoft-published sources. Those that I have seen just call it BitLocker. Event the article uses BitLocker, except once in the lead. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://spi.unob.cz/presentations/23-May/07-Rosendorf%20The%C2%A0BitLocker%C2%A0Schema.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
https://cryptoservices.github.io/fde/2014/12/08/code-execution-in-spite-of-bitlocker.html may contain more information as to why Elephant Diffuser was removed in Windows 8. 2A01:2B0:305A:54:C138:F5E:FCF:7CEC ( talk) 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft has added XTS mode
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt403325.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396 OneGuy ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BitLocker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The article
BitLocker you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 30 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:BitLocker for things which need to be addressed.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BitLocker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
deadurl
parameter accordingly.
Indrek (
talk) 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Section "Availability" starts quite misleading in my opinion. I assume the way of presenting the information originates from some Microsoft marketing material.
In my understanding there are different versions or feature sets of bitlocker on different operating systems (OS). While some operating system versions support most (or all) features (may be Windows 10 Enterprise?) others support only certain features. E.g., later on in the text it is mentioned that Windows XP can read bitlocker encrypted volumes (when the required software is installed) and from my own experience I know that Windows 8 Home supports read and write access to encrypted external media, even though, creating new encrypted volumes is not supported.
Therefore, the section "Availability" should be either a table with OS's and supported features or, alternatively, different subsections starting with a description of the supported features and then the OS's providing these features.
Currently, the text gives the impression that I best buy one of the recommended OS's listed here or otherwise I must purchase an upgrade for my Windows 8 Home, if I later want to read my friend's encrypted USB-stick, which is wrong.-- 85.181.125.24 ( talk) 17:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, everyone
Today, I made a correction to a contribution made by Zazpot in revision 805728599. I did the following:
Items 1, 4 and 5 show that the contribution has actually come from outside, but it is pointless now: I do know that it has come from the Infineon article and it was Zazpot's own contribution. So, nothing to worry about there.
Zazpot reverted the whole corrections with no reason whatsoever in Revision 805758858. This amounts to disruptive editing. I performed a somewhat different version of these changes in the Infineon article too, but there was a blanket reversion there as well. Now, that reversion had an actual reason: Inbound link getting broken. Nevertheless Zazpot could have simply fixed this problem instead of resorting to such an aggressive revert.
I am starting this thread to help Zazpot set the record right, tell us what his concern exactly was, and perform something less aggressive than a blanket revert.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 14:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"addition of a couple of wikilinks and removal of a couple of others". That's not an objection.
"adding the publisher to an already adequate citation". The BitLocker article's style is to always mention the publisher. Perhaps you are aware that citation style in Wikipedia is considered optional style; if you weren't, now you are.
"transforming a true statement supported by the cited source [...] into an overstatement unsupported by the cited source". Your source does not say anything about laptops or BitLocker being wholly TPM-based. Furthermore, the article already provides other sources that TPM is only one of the BitLocker protectors. Plus, one must apply common sense. If TPM is compromised, then it affects anything that uses it, be it server, desktop, laptop, tablet, or embedded system.
"removal of a footnote in a densely technical section". You have to give WP:INTEGRITY another read. Your whole contribution was from one source. Repeating insertion of footnote is disruptive.
"removed section headings, breaking at least one inbound link in the process". Still not an excuse for a blanket reversion. What I did in revision 805763539 should be more than adequate for your inbound links; that's what you should have done instead of reverting. And you should have done it in the first place, because not every paragraph needs a separate section of its own. Lastly, I am yet to see an evidence of inbound links.
Laptops and other computing devices"), but let's have a further discussion here on any additional changes it might need if necessary.Also, repeating the same citation more than once in the same paragraph is permitted. Your assertion that it is disruptive is not backed by policies or guidelines that I'm aware of. Personally, I prefer to use paragraph citations when possible, but per WP:CITETYPE, this is a matter of preference. If an editor wants them to appear after each sentence in the paragraph, nothing in WP:CITE forbids the practice. I have left it as a paragraph citation for now, but this preference is nothing worth fussing over. That leads me to my next point; I think you've assumed bad faith towards Zazpot, who was making an attempt to improve the article and took the time to explain their actions on this talk page. It's all in the past at this point. Let's focus on content moving forward and not on the contributor. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"Laptops and other computing devices whose encrypted hard drives are protected with TPM-based BitLocker implementations are potentially affected"both fails verification and is partly patent nonsense.
The word "laptop" appears only in the previous sentence and is about the test samples in their applicability research:"The keys it uses to control Microsoft's BitLocker hard-disk encryption are factorizable."
You must not let your imaginations run amok. Of course, you can point out that I too must not put "server, desktop, laptop, tablet, or embedded system" into the article. Well, I didn't."Next, the researchers examined a sampling of 41 different laptop models that used trusted platform modules. They found vulnerable TPMs from Infineon in 10 of them."
I wrote the correct version of it: "when a TPM protector is used."
There is no such thing as "TPM-based BitLocker implementations". There is one BitLocker implementation only.
I wrote the correct version of it: "when a TPM protector is used."
"Potentially" is flagrantly false.
The source never said, anything about "drives", "computers", "laptops", "devices" or anything like that being the victim...If it applies to both laptops and non-laptops, then it applies to everything and you don't need to try to restrict the criteria
Also, why are we using the term protector?"Protector" is a technical term used for BitLocker authentication mechanisms, of which TPM is one. However, seeing as it's not used anywhere else in this article, it does seem a bit odd to use it just for that one sentence. And yes, the article shouldn't imply all TPM chips are affected when the source does not say that.
![]() | BitLocker has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 25, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The usage of boot and system partitions was reversed - the boot drive has the OS, whereas the system drive has ntldr. It's counter-intuitive. See the linked article System partition and boot partition SenorBeef 01:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
New Research Result: Cold Boot Attacks on Disk Encryption —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.121.18 ( talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Microsoft sources,[6] BitLocker does not contain an intentionally built-in backdoor; there is no way for law enforcement to have a guaranteed passage to the data on the user's drives that is provided by Microsoft. This has been one of the main concerns among power-users since the announcement of built-in encryption in Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.41.220 ( talk) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't understand either of these two sentences:
Could a knowledgeable person expand on both statements? They both need more explanation. Tempshill ( talk) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There should be a section about BitLocker compatibility with NTFS Compression. Are they compatible? It should be discussed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.26.167 ( talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
NOTHING on the performance hit?? Why NOT! ? 71.31.154.68 ( talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
On February 25th, Cryptome released LE(Law Enforcement) sensitive documents regarding security in WIN7 that allows anyone to get access to the key to any BitLocker locked drive by going to C:\Windows\system32 in a command prompt and entering manage-bde-protectors -get c:. The original file comes from http://publicintelligence.net/microsoft-windows-7vista-advanced-forensics-guides-for-law-enforcement/. It seems like information that would be useful in the public domain, or at least help convince Microsoft to close the loophole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avialexander ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
CBC = Cipher Block Chaining. That means that any block of ciphertext depends on all the blocks before. As BitLocker is used to encrypt a whole drive (!!) isn't this mode infeasible? I mean flip a single bit in sector 1 and have every following sector reencrypted? Most drive encryption utilities use CTR mode for this reason. I don't want to express any doubt on BitLocker using CBC, but are there any details of how exactly this block cipher mode of operation is used in practice? 217.94.192.205 ( talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The cold boot section for TPM only is perhaps not well explained. From what I can tell (and reading the paper), what's being said is you can recover the keys at any time. This seems rather obvious, if you don't require a password or something from the user to decrypt but get the keys from something on the computer, then you can decrypt the content at any time. I guess the point here is you don't have to work out some way to break in to the machine if you don't know the logon password (although I would think it obvious a logon password is little protection if the data is decrypted) and more importantly you don't have to logon (or properly start Windows?) and risk contaminating data (since any decent forensics expert is going to want to make an image rather then working on the original data). I personally wouldn't call this a cold boot attack (although the paper does so I guess we have to follow). You are just relying on the fact the keys can be recovered at any time without requiring something from the user by design although perhaps a cold boot attack is needed (I'm a bit unclear on the process, it may be what's being described is start up the computer, let it load the keys, do a hard shut down then a cold boot attack although you could also do other things like try to read the RAM while the computer is running or whatever albeit these are likely to be more difficult). Nil Einne ( talk) 03:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
According to [2], which isn't a great RS, at least one computer vendor regularly implements some sort of master password they can provide to decrypt the data which caries obvious security implications. Nil Einne ( talk) 03:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There are at least three problems with the following paragraph in the article:
'Notwithstanding the claims of Niels Ferguson and others, Microsoft Services states in Exploration of Windows 7, Advanced Forensics Topic (page 70), "BitLocker has a number of 'Recovery' scenarios that we can exploit", and "BitLocker, at its core, is a password technology, we simply have to get the password...".'
1) It is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy regarding linking to unlicensed copyrighted works, as detailed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works,
2) It dishonestly represents the original content by truncating the quoted text, removing the qualifying context,
3) It is contradictory to other established content in the article, which indicates that there are "TPM + USB Key" and "USB Key" modes of operation, which do not involve a PIN or a password.
Mhalcrow ( talk) 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
BitLocker is either full disk, or full volume encryption, but not both. First paragraph starts as BitLocker Drive Encryption is a full disk encryption feature..., but later on states It is designed to protect data by providing encryption for entire volumes.
BitLocker, technically is a full volume encryption. It cannot encrypt a full disk. 207.87.238.194 ( talk) 14:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Rabbit hole. Yes, there are full disk encryption drives. BitLocker is the topic. BitLocker encrypts volumes, not drives. Either present it incorrectly as whole disk encryption, or correctly as whole volume encryption. 207.87.238.194 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 07:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
BitLocker Drive Encryption → BitLocker – Hi. As you might know, Wikipedia naming policy states that commonly used names are preferred over official names. I've never seen the phrase "BitLocker Drive Encryption" used outside Microsoft-published sources. Those that I have seen just call it BitLocker. Event the article uses BitLocker, except once in the lead. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://spi.unob.cz/presentations/23-May/07-Rosendorf%20The%C2%A0BitLocker%C2%A0Schema.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
https://cryptoservices.github.io/fde/2014/12/08/code-execution-in-spite-of-bitlocker.html may contain more information as to why Elephant Diffuser was removed in Windows 8. 2A01:2B0:305A:54:C138:F5E:FCF:7CEC ( talk) 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft has added XTS mode
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt403325.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396 OneGuy ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BitLocker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The article
BitLocker you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 30 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:BitLocker for things which need to be addressed.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BitLocker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
deadurl
parameter accordingly.
Indrek (
talk) 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Section "Availability" starts quite misleading in my opinion. I assume the way of presenting the information originates from some Microsoft marketing material.
In my understanding there are different versions or feature sets of bitlocker on different operating systems (OS). While some operating system versions support most (or all) features (may be Windows 10 Enterprise?) others support only certain features. E.g., later on in the text it is mentioned that Windows XP can read bitlocker encrypted volumes (when the required software is installed) and from my own experience I know that Windows 8 Home supports read and write access to encrypted external media, even though, creating new encrypted volumes is not supported.
Therefore, the section "Availability" should be either a table with OS's and supported features or, alternatively, different subsections starting with a description of the supported features and then the OS's providing these features.
Currently, the text gives the impression that I best buy one of the recommended OS's listed here or otherwise I must purchase an upgrade for my Windows 8 Home, if I later want to read my friend's encrypted USB-stick, which is wrong.-- 85.181.125.24 ( talk) 17:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, everyone
Today, I made a correction to a contribution made by Zazpot in revision 805728599. I did the following:
Items 1, 4 and 5 show that the contribution has actually come from outside, but it is pointless now: I do know that it has come from the Infineon article and it was Zazpot's own contribution. So, nothing to worry about there.
Zazpot reverted the whole corrections with no reason whatsoever in Revision 805758858. This amounts to disruptive editing. I performed a somewhat different version of these changes in the Infineon article too, but there was a blanket reversion there as well. Now, that reversion had an actual reason: Inbound link getting broken. Nevertheless Zazpot could have simply fixed this problem instead of resorting to such an aggressive revert.
I am starting this thread to help Zazpot set the record right, tell us what his concern exactly was, and perform something less aggressive than a blanket revert.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 14:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"addition of a couple of wikilinks and removal of a couple of others". That's not an objection.
"adding the publisher to an already adequate citation". The BitLocker article's style is to always mention the publisher. Perhaps you are aware that citation style in Wikipedia is considered optional style; if you weren't, now you are.
"transforming a true statement supported by the cited source [...] into an overstatement unsupported by the cited source". Your source does not say anything about laptops or BitLocker being wholly TPM-based. Furthermore, the article already provides other sources that TPM is only one of the BitLocker protectors. Plus, one must apply common sense. If TPM is compromised, then it affects anything that uses it, be it server, desktop, laptop, tablet, or embedded system.
"removal of a footnote in a densely technical section". You have to give WP:INTEGRITY another read. Your whole contribution was from one source. Repeating insertion of footnote is disruptive.
"removed section headings, breaking at least one inbound link in the process". Still not an excuse for a blanket reversion. What I did in revision 805763539 should be more than adequate for your inbound links; that's what you should have done instead of reverting. And you should have done it in the first place, because not every paragraph needs a separate section of its own. Lastly, I am yet to see an evidence of inbound links.
Laptops and other computing devices"), but let's have a further discussion here on any additional changes it might need if necessary.Also, repeating the same citation more than once in the same paragraph is permitted. Your assertion that it is disruptive is not backed by policies or guidelines that I'm aware of. Personally, I prefer to use paragraph citations when possible, but per WP:CITETYPE, this is a matter of preference. If an editor wants them to appear after each sentence in the paragraph, nothing in WP:CITE forbids the practice. I have left it as a paragraph citation for now, but this preference is nothing worth fussing over. That leads me to my next point; I think you've assumed bad faith towards Zazpot, who was making an attempt to improve the article and took the time to explain their actions on this talk page. It's all in the past at this point. Let's focus on content moving forward and not on the contributor. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"Laptops and other computing devices whose encrypted hard drives are protected with TPM-based BitLocker implementations are potentially affected"both fails verification and is partly patent nonsense.
The word "laptop" appears only in the previous sentence and is about the test samples in their applicability research:"The keys it uses to control Microsoft's BitLocker hard-disk encryption are factorizable."
You must not let your imaginations run amok. Of course, you can point out that I too must not put "server, desktop, laptop, tablet, or embedded system" into the article. Well, I didn't."Next, the researchers examined a sampling of 41 different laptop models that used trusted platform modules. They found vulnerable TPMs from Infineon in 10 of them."
I wrote the correct version of it: "when a TPM protector is used."
There is no such thing as "TPM-based BitLocker implementations". There is one BitLocker implementation only.
I wrote the correct version of it: "when a TPM protector is used."
"Potentially" is flagrantly false.
The source never said, anything about "drives", "computers", "laptops", "devices" or anything like that being the victim...If it applies to both laptops and non-laptops, then it applies to everything and you don't need to try to restrict the criteria
Also, why are we using the term protector?"Protector" is a technical term used for BitLocker authentication mechanisms, of which TPM is one. However, seeing as it's not used anywhere else in this article, it does seem a bit odd to use it just for that one sentence. And yes, the article shouldn't imply all TPM chips are affected when the source does not say that.