File-Based Encryption | Android Open Source Project

Android 7.0 and later supports file-based encryption (FBE). File-basedencryption allows different files to be encrypted with different keys that canbe unlocked independently.

This article describes how to enable file-based encryption on new devicesand how system applications can be updated to take full advantage of the newDirect Boot APIs and offer users the best, most secure experience possible.

Warning: File-based encryption cannotcurrently be used together with adoptable storage. On devices usingfile-based encryption, new storage media (such as an SD card) must be used astraditional storage.

File-based encryption enables a new feature introduced in Android 7.0 called DirectBoot. Direct Boot allows encrypted devices to boot straight to the lockscreen. Previously, on encrypted devices using full-diskencryption (FDE), users needed to provide credentials before any data couldbe accessed, preventing the phone from performing all but the most basic ofoperations. For example, alarms could not operate, accessibility services wereunavailable, and phones could not receive calls but were limited to only basicemergency dialer operations.

With the introduction of file-based encryption (FBE) and new APIs to makeapplications aware of encryption, it is possible for these apps to operatewithin a limited context. This can happen before users have provided theircredentials while still protecting private user information.

On an FBE-enabled device, each user of the device has two storage locationsavailable to applications:

This separation makes work profiles more secure because it allows more than oneuser to be protected at a time as the encryption is no longer based solely on aboot time password.

The Direct Boot API allows encryption-aware applications to access each of theseareas. There are changes to the application lifecycle to accommodate the need tonotify applications when a users CE storage is unlocked in response tofirst entering credentials at the lock screen, or in the case of work profileproviding aworkchallenge. Devices running Android 7.0 must support these new APIs andlifecycles regardless of whether or not they implement FBE. Although, withoutFBE, DE and CE storage will always be in the unlocked state.

A complete implementation of file-based encryption on an Ext4 file system isprovided in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) and needs only be enabled ondevices that meet the requirements. Manufacturers electing to use FBE may wishto explore ways of optimizing the feature based on the system on chip (SoC)used.

All the necessary packages in AOSP have been updated to be direct-boot aware.However, where device manufacturers use customized versions of these apps, theywill want to ensure at a minimum there are direct-boot aware packages providingthe following services:

Android provides a reference implementation of file-based encryption, in whichvold (system/vold)provides the functionality for managing storage devices andvolumes on Android. The addition of FBE provides vold with several new commandsto support key management for the CE and DE keys of multiple users. In additionto the core changes to use the ext4 Encryptioncapabilities in kernel many system packages including the lockscreen and theSystemUI have been modified to support the FBE and Direct Boot features. Theseinclude:

* System applications that use the defaultToDeviceProtectedStoragemanifest attribute

More examples of applications and services that are encryption aware can befound by running the command mangrep directBootAware in theframeworks or packages directory of the AOSPsource tree.

To use the AOSP implementation of FBE securely, a device needs to meet thefollowing dependencies:

Note: Storage policies are applied to a folder and all of itssubfolders. Manufacturers should limit the contents that go unencrypted to theOTA folder and the folder that holds the key that decrypts the system. Mostcontents should reside in credential-encrypted storage rather thandevice-encrypted storage.

First and foremost, apps such as alarm clocks, phone, accessibility featuresshould be made android:directBootAware according to DirectBoot developer documentation.

The AOSP implementation of file-based encryption uses the ext4 encryptionfeatures in the Linux 4.4 kernel. The recommended solution is to use a kernelbased on 4.4 or later. Ext4 encryption has also been backported to a 3.10 kernelin the Android common repositories and for the supported Nexus kernels.

The android-3.10.y branch in the AOSP kernel/common git repository mayprovide a good starting point for device manufacturers that want to import thiscapability into their own device kernels. However, it is necessary to applythe most recent patches from the latest stable Linux kernel (currently linux-4.6)of the ext4 and jbd2 projects. The Nexus device kernels already include many ofthese patches.

Note that each of these kernels uses a backport to 3.10. The ext4and jbd2 drivers from linux 3.18 were transplanted into existing kernels basedon 3.10. Due to interdependencies between parts of the kernel, this backportbreaks support for a number of features that are not used by Nexus devices.These include:

In addition to functional support for ext4 encryption, device manufacturers mayalso consider implementing cryptographic acceleration to speed up file-basedencryption and improve the user experience.

FBE is enabled by adding the flagfileencryption=contents_encryption_mode[:filenames_encryption_mode]to the fstab line in the final column for the userdatapartition. contents_encryption_mode parameter defines whichcryptographic algorithm is used for the encryption of file contents andfilenames_encryption_mode for the encryption of filenames.contents_encryption_mode can be only aes-256-xts.filenames_encryption_mode has two possible values: aes-256-ctsand aes-256-heh. If filenames_encryption_mode is not specifiedthen aes-256-cts value is used.

Whilst testing the FBE implementation on a device, it is possible to specify thefollowing flag:forcefdeorfbe=""

This sets the device up with FDE but allows conversion to FBE for developers. Bydefault, this behaves like forceencrypt, putting the device intoFDE mode. However, it will expose a debug option allowing a device to be putinto FBE mode as is the case in the developer preview. It is also possible toenable FBE from fastboot using this command:

This is intended solely for development purposes as a platform for demonstratingthe feature before actual FBE devices are released. This flag may be deprecatedin the future.

The generation of keys and management of the kernel keyring is handled byvold. The AOSP implementation of FBE requires that the devicesupport Keymaster HAL version 1.0 or later. There is no support for earlierversions of the Keymaster HAL.

On first boot, user 0s keys are generated and installed early in the bootprocess. By the time the on-post-fs phase of initcompletes, the Keymaster must be ready to handle requests. On Nexus devices,this is handled by having a script block:

Note: All encryption is based on AES-256 inXTS mode. Due to the way XTS is defined, it needs two 256-bit keys; so ineffect, both CE and DE keys are 512-bit keys.

Ext4 encryption applies the encryption policy at the directory level. When adevices userdata partition is first created, the basic structuresand policies are applied by the init scripts. These scripts willtrigger the creation of the first users (user 0s) CE and DE keys as well asdefine which directories are to be encrypted with these keys. When additionalusers and profiles are created, the necessary additional keys are generated andstored in the keystore; their credential and devices storage locations arecreated and the encryption policy links these keys to those directories.

In the current AOSP implementation, the encryption policy is hardcoded into thislocation:

It is possible to add exceptions in this file to prevent certain directoriesfrom being encrypted at all, by adding to the directories_to_excludelist. If modifications of this sort are made then the devicemanufacturer should include SELinux policies that only grant access to theapplications that need to use the unencrypted directory. This should exclude alluntrusted applications.

The only known acceptable use case for this is in support of legacy OTAcapabilities.

To facilitate rapid migration of system apps, there are two new attributes thatcan be set at the application level. ThedefaultToDeviceProtectedStorage attribute is available only tosystem apps. The directBootAware attribute is available to all.

The directBootAware attribute at the application level is shorthand for markingall components in the app as being encryption aware.

The defaultToDeviceProtectedStorage attribute redirects the defaultapp storage location to point at DE storage instead of pointing at CE storage.System apps using this flag must carefully audit all data stored in the defaultlocation, and change the paths of sensitive data to use CE storage. Devicemanufactures using this option should carefully inspect the data that they arestoring to ensure that it contains no personal information.

When running in this mode, the following System APIs areavailable to explicitly manage a Context backed by CE storage when needed, whichare equivalent to their Device Protected counterparts.

Each user in a multi-user environment gets a separate encryption key. Every usergets two keys: a DE and a CE key. User 0 must log into the device first as it isa special user. This is pertinent for DeviceAdministration uses.

Crypto-aware applications interact across users in this manner:INTERACT_ACROSS_USERS and INTERACT_ACROSS_USERS_FULLallow an application to act across all the users on the device. However, thoseapps will be able to access only CE-encrypted directories for users that arealready unlocked.

An application may be able to interact freely across the DE areas, but one userunlocked does not mean that all the users on the device are unlocked. Theapplication should check this status before trying to access these areas.

Each work profile user ID also gets two keys: DE and CE. When the work challengeis met, the profile user is unlocked and the Keymaster (in TEE) can provide theprofiles TEE key.

The recovery partition is unable to access the DE-protected storage on theuserdata partition. Devices implementing FBE are strongly recommended to supportOTA using A/B system updates. Asthe OTA can be applied during normal operation there is no need for recovery toaccess data on the encrypted drive.

When using a legacy OTA solution, which requires recovery to access the OTA fileon the userdata partition:

To ensure the implemented version of the feature works as intended, employ themany CTS encryption tests.

Once the kernel builds for your board, also build for x86 and run under QEMU inorder to test with xfstest by using:

In addition, device manufacturers may perform these manual tests. On a devicewith FBE enabled:

Additionally, testers can boot a userdebug instance with a lockscreen set on theprimary user. Then adb shell into the device and usesu to become root. Make sure /data/data containsencrypted filenames; if it does not, something is wrong.

This section provides details on the AOSP implementation and describes howfile-based encryption works. It should not be necessary for device manufacturersto make any changes here to use FBE and Direct Boot on their devices.

The AOSP implementation uses ext4 encryption in kernel and is configured to:

Disk encryption keys, which are 512-bit AES-XTS keys, are stored encryptedby another key (a 256-bit AES-GCM key) held in the TEE. To use this TEE key,three requirements must be met:

The auth token is a cryptographically authenticated token generated byGatekeeperwhen a user successfully logs in. The TEE will refuse to use the key unless thecorrect auth token is supplied. If the user has no credential, then no authtoken is used nor needed.

The stretched credential is the user credential after salting andstretching with the scrypt algorithm. The credential is actuallyhashed once in the lock settings service before being passed tovold for passing to scrypt. This is cryptographicallybound to the key in the TEE with all the guarantees that apply toKM_TAG_APPLICATION_ID. If the user has no credential, then nostretched credential is used nor needed.

The secdiscardable hash is a 512-bit hash of a random 16 KB filestored alongside other information used to reconstruct the key, such as theseed. This file is securely deleted when the key is deleted, or it is encryptedin a new way; this added protection ensures an attacker must recover every bitof this securely deleted file to recover the key. This is cryptographicallybound to the key in the TEE with all the guarantees that apply toKM_TAG_APPLICATION_ID. See the KeystoreImplementer's Reference.

Continued here:
File-Based Encryption | Android Open Source Project

Encryption – 2018 News, Articles and Trends – Tom’s IT Pro

Refine Also By Tag: , Article Type: , Author: ,

Tag:

Article Type:

Author:

March 1, 2016 in News

Echoworx, primarily known for its OneWorld email encryption platform, announced today that it will bring the OneWorld platform to the AWS cloud. Read More

July 15, 2015 in News

Although security has been top of mind for Salesforce for years, the company is stepping up its game with the introduction of Salesforce Shield, a new set of security and compliance features that support the Salesforce1 Platform. Read More

April 30, 2015 in Feature

While many organizations are looking to take advantage of the cloud, data security remains a top concern. However, effective data protection and strong encryption in the cloud is possible and available through a number of cloud solutions. Read More

April 23, 2015 in Feature

While mobile devices, such as laptops, notebooks and portable drives, offer unique benefits to both employees and employers, there are some security risks to consider. Here's how hard disk encryption solutions for these mobile devices can help. Read More

March 17, 2015 in Feature

Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is a popular encryption and authentication approach used by both small businesses and large enterprises. Here's how PKI is used today and how you can implement it in your organization. Read More

February 11, 2015 in News

As intelligence services worldwide debate the value of consumer- and enterprise-controlled encryption that do not contain backdoors for the spies, vendors are introducing a plethora of encryption offerings designed to pique corporate interests. Read More

January 21, 2015 in Feature

Encryption key management is a necessary component of effective data protection. Let's examine some challenges and considerations when it comes to selecting the right key management solution as well as some options available today. Read More

November 26, 2014 in Feature

Today's enterprises utilizing wireless networking are adopting WiFi with WPA2 and Protected Management Fames to keep their organizations secure. Here are the deployment options for implementing WPA2-Enterprise. Read More

See original here:
Encryption - 2018 News, Articles and Trends - Tom's IT Pro

Beyond Encryption | Secure Enterprise email using existing …

Secure recorded delivery and response

Mailock employs a unique process allowing you to authenticate the identity of your intended recipient before granting them access; only when they have proven their identity to you is access permitted to any of the message content.

We call this 'Identity Assured Communication'.

But being able to read your secure emails is only half of the story; with Mailock, your customers are also able to reply securely, thus ensuring that conversations containing sensitive details remain protected, secure and private.

We know that it is important to reach your audience so Mailock has been designed to allow just that. Whether your customer reads your secure email in a web browser, on a mobile device or from within their existing desktop email system, we have all the bases covered.

Using a unique light touch registration and challenge process, Mailock allows your customers to authenticate their identity and read your secure email within seconds of receiving it.

Mobile Apps for iPhone and Android and plug-ins for email programs such as Microsoft Outlook and Apple Mail are all freely available for download from the App Stores and our website to create a truly easy to use and integrated user experience.

The storage location and control of confidential customer data is crucial to organisations seeking to meet regulatory requirements. With Mailock, your encrypted email data may be held in data stores owned and managed by you and our unique challenge process allows you to control when this data is released and to whom.

The Mailock system is free to all recipients and consumers of the service are encouraged to link their Mailock identity to both business and personal email addresses. Through return data, this provides a ground-breaking opportunity to assist in the maintenance of your important contact data meaning that you need never lose the ability to stay in touch with your customers again.

At Mailock, we know that regulatory compliance is of paramount importance to your business and its customers and we have designed the system so that it may be readily integrated with your incumbent systems.

Contact us for further details of how this may be achieved with your existing tools and processes.

We all have a duty to reduce our carbon footprint and Mailock offers an unprecedented opportunity to cut cost whilst improving operating efficiencies and reducing emissions.

Every secure Mailock message delivered provides you, the business user, with a targeted marketing message opportunity. Contact us for further details of how Mailock can spread the word for your business and enhance your promotional activities.

Visit link:
Beyond Encryption | Secure Enterprise email using existing ...

Azure Search enterprise security: Data encryption and user …

Enterprise security requires a comprehensive approach for defense in depth. Effective immediately, Azure Search now supports encryption at rest for all incoming data indexed on or after January 24, 2018, in all regions and SKUs including shared (free) services. With this announcement, encryption now extends throughout the entire indexing pipeline from connection, through transmission, and down to indexed data stored in Azure Search.

At query time, you can implement user-identity access controls that trim search results of documents that the requestor is not authorized to see. Enhancements to filters enable integration with third-party authentication providers, as well as integration with Azure Active Directory.

All indexing includes encryption on the backend automatically with no measurable impact on indexing workloads or size. This applies to newly indexed documents only. For existing content, you have to re-index to gain encryption. Encryption status of any given index is not visible in the portal, nor available through the API. However, if you indexed after January 24, 2018, data is already encrypted.

In the context of Azure Search, all aspects of encryption, decryption, and key management are internal. You cannot turn it on or off, manage or substitute your own keys, or view encryption settings in the portal or programmatically. Internally, encryption is based on Azure Storage Service Encryption, using 256-bit AES encryption, one of the strongest block ciphers available.

Go here to read the rest:
Azure Search enterprise security: Data encryption and user ...

Skype finally getting end-to-end encryption | Ars Technica

Since its inception, Skype has been notable for its secretive, proprietary algorithm. It's also long had a complicated relationship with encryption: encryption is used by the Skype protocol, but the service has never been clear exactly how that encryption was implemented or exactly which privacy and security features it offers.

That changes today in a big way. The newest Skype preview now supports the Signal protocol: the end-to-end encrypted protocol already used by WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Google Allo, and, of course, Signal. Skype Private Conversations will support text, audio calls, and file transfers, with end-to-end encryption that Microsoft, Signal, and, it's believed, law enforcement agencies cannot eavesdrop on.

Presently, Private Conversations are only available in the Insider builds of Skype. Naturally, the Universal Windows Platform version of the appthe preferred version on Windows 10isn't yet supported. In contrast, the desktop version of the app, along with the iOS, Android, Linux, and macOS clients, all have compatible Insider builds. Private Conversations aren't the default and don't appear to yet support video calling. The latter limitation shouldn't be insurmountable (Signal's own app offers secure video calling). We hope to see the former change once updated clients are stable and widely deployed.

We've criticized Skype's failure to provide this kind of security in the past. Skype still has valuable features, such as its interoperability with traditional phone networks and additional tools for TV and radio broadcasters. But its tardiness at adopting this kind of technology left Skype behind its peers. The adoption of end-to-end security is very welcome, and the decision to do so using the Signal protocol, rather than yet another proprietary Skype protocol, marks a change from the product's history.

Although Skype remains widely used, mobile-oriented upstarts like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger rapidly surpassed it. Becoming secure and trustworthy is a necessary development, but whether or not it's going to be sufficient to reinvigorate the application is far from clear.

Read more here:
Skype finally getting end-to-end encryption | Ars Technica

FBI chief says phone encryption is a ‘major public safety issue’

Wray urged the private sector to work with the government in finding "a way forward quickly," insisting that the FBI isn't interested in peeking into ordinary citizens' devices. The bureau just wants access to the ones owned by suspects. That pretty much echoes Comey's position during his time -- if you'll recall the FBI asked tech titans to create a backdoor into their software and phones in order to give authorities a way to open them during investigations. Apple chief Tim Cook said the request had "chilling" and "dangerous" implications, warning that companies wouldn't be able to control how that backdoor is used.

Wray told the audience at the event that authorities face an increasing number of cases that rely on electronic evidence. He doesn't buy companies claims that it's impossible to find a way for encryption to be more law enforcement-friendly, so to speak. Not that the FBI can't do anything if it absolutely has to: when Apple refused to cooperate with authorities to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, the agency paid a third party almost a million to get the job done.

Read more:
FBI chief says phone encryption is a 'major public safety issue'

Ransomware – Wikipedia

Ransomware is a type of malicious software from cryptovirology that threatens to publish the victim's data or perpetually block access to it unless a ransom is paid. While some simple ransomware may lock the system in a way which is not difficult for a knowledgeable person to reverse, more advanced malware uses a technique called cryptoviral extortion, in which it encrypts the victim's files, making them inaccessible, and demands a ransom payment to decrypt them.[1][2][3][4] In a properly implemented cryptoviral extortion attack, recovering the files without the decryption key is an intractable problem and difficult to trace digital currencies such as Ukash and Bitcoin are used for the ransoms, making tracing and prosecuting the perpetrators difficult.

Ransomware attacks are typically carried out using a Trojan that is disguised as a legitimate file that the user is tricked into downloading or opening when it arrives as an email attachment. However, one high-profile example, the "WannaCry worm", traveled automatically between computers without user interaction.

Starting from around 2012 the use of ransomware scams has grown internationally.[5][6][7] in June 2013, vendor McAfee released data showing that it had collected more than double the number of samples of ransomware that quarter than it had in the same quarter of the previous year.[8]CryptoLocker was particularly successful, procuring an estimated US $3 million before it was taken down by authorities,[9] and CryptoWall was estimated by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to have accrued over US $18m by June 2015.[10]

The concept of file encrypting ransomware was invented and implemented by Young and Yung at Columbia University and was presented at the 1996 IEEE Security & Privacy conference. It is called cryptoviral extortion and it was inspired by the fictional facehugger in the movie Alien.[11] Cryptoviral extortion is the following three-round protocol carried out between the attacker and the victim.[1]

The symmetric key is randomly generated and will not assist other victims. At no point is the attacker's private key exposed to victims and the victim need only send a very small ciphertext (the encrypted symmetric-cipher key) to the attacker.

Ransomware attacks are typically carried out using a Trojan, entering a system through, for example, a downloaded file or a vulnerability in a network service. The program then runs a payload, which locks the system in some fashion, or claims to lock the system but does not (e.g., a scareware program). Payloads may display a fake warning purportedly by an entity such as a law enforcement agency, falsely claiming that the system has been used for illegal activities, contains content such as pornography and "pirated" media.[12][13][14]

Some payloads consist simply of an application designed to lock or restrict the system until payment is made, typically by setting the Windows Shell to itself,[15] or even modifying the master boot record and/or partition table to prevent the operating system from booting until it is repaired.[16] The most sophisticated payloads encrypt files, with many using strong encryption to encrypt the victim's files in such a way that only the malware author has the needed decryption key.[1][17][18]

Payment is virtually always the goal, and the victim is coerced into paying for the ransomware to be removedwhich may or may not actually occureither by supplying a program that can decrypt the files, or by sending an unlock code that undoes the payload's changes. A key element in making ransomware work for the attacker is a convenient payment system that is hard to trace. A range of such payment methods have been used, including wire transfers, premium-rate text messages,[19] pre-paid voucher services such as Paysafecard,[5][20][21] and the digital currency Bitcoin.[22][23][24] A 2016 survey commissioned by Citrix claimed that larger businesses are holding bitcoin as contingency plans.[25]

The first known malware extortion attack, the "AIDS Trojan" written by Joseph Popp in 1989, had a design failure so severe it was not necessary to pay the extortionist at all. Its payload hid the files on the hard drive and encrypted only their names, and displayed a message claiming that the user's license to use a certain piece of software had expired. The user was asked to pay US$189 to "PC Cyborg Corporation" in order to obtain a repair tool even though the decryption key could be extracted from the code of the Trojan. The Trojan was also known as "PC Cyborg". Popp was declared mentally unfit to stand trial for his actions, but he promised to donate the profits from the malware to fund AIDS research.[26]

The idea of abusing anonymous cash systems to safely collect ransom from human kidnapping was introduced in 1992 by Sebastiaan von Solms and David Naccache.[27] This money collection method is a key feature of ransomware. In the von Solms-Naccache scenario a newspaper publication was used (since bitcoin ledgers did not exist at the time the paper was written).

The notion of using public key cryptography for data kidnapping attacks was introduced in 1996 by Adam L. Young and Moti Yung. Young and Yung critiqued the failed AIDS Information Trojan that relied on symmetric cryptography alone, the fatal flaw being that the decryption key could be extracted from the Trojan, and implemented an experimental proof-of-concept cryptovirus on a Macintosh SE/30 that used RSA and the Tiny Encryption Algorithm (TEA) to hybrid encrypt the victim's data. Since public key crypto is used, the cryptovirus only contains the encryption key. The attacker keeps the corresponding private decryption key private. Young and Yung's original experimental cryptovirus had the victim send the asymmetric ciphertext to the attacker who deciphers it and returns the symmetric decryption key it contains to the victim for a fee. Long before electronic money existed Young and Yung proposed that electronic money could be extorted through encryption as well, stating that "the virus writer can effectively hold all of the money ransom until half of it is given to him. Even if the e-money was previously encrypted by the user, it is of no use to the user if it gets encrypted by a cryptovirus".[1] They referred to these attacks as being "cryptoviral extortion", an overt attack that is part of a larger class of attacks in a field called cryptovirology, which encompasses both overt and covert attacks.[1] The cryptoviral extortion protocol was inspired by the forced-symbiotic relationship between H. R. Giger's facehugger and its host in the movie Alien.[1][11]

Examples of extortionate ransomware became prominent in May 2005.[28] By mid-2006, Trojans such as Gpcode, TROJ.RANSOM.A, Archiveus, Krotten, Cryzip, and MayArchive began utilizing more sophisticated RSA encryption schemes, with ever-increasing key-sizes. Gpcode.AG, which was detected in June 2006, was encrypted with a 660-bit RSA public key.[29] In June 2008, a variant known as Gpcode.AK was detected. Using a 1024-bit RSA key, it was believed large enough to be computationally infeasible to break without a concerted distributed effort.[30][31][32][33]

Encrypting ransomware returned to prominence in late 2013 with the propagation of CryptoLockerusing the Bitcoin digital currency platform to collect ransom money. In December 2013, ZDNet estimated based on Bitcoin transaction information that between 15 October and 18 December, the operators of CryptoLocker had procured about US$27 million from infected users.[34] The CryptoLocker technique was widely copied in the months following, including CryptoLocker 2.0 (though not to be related to CryptoLocker), CryptoDefense (which initially contained a major design flaw that stored the private key on the infected system in a user-retrievable location, due to its use of Windows' built-in encryption APIs),[23][35][36][37] and the August 2014 discovery of a Trojan specifically targeting network-attached storage devices produced by Synology.[38] In January 2015, it was reported that ransomware-styled attacks have occurred against individual websites via hacking, and through ransomware designed to target Linux-based web servers.[39][40][41]

The Microsoft Malware Protection Center identified a trend away from WSF files in favor of LNK files and PowerShell scripting.[42] These LNK shortcut files install Locky ransomware by automating infection operations rather than relying on traditional user downloads of WSF filesall of which is made possible by the universal PowerShell Windows application. Unfortunately, cyber criminals have been able to leverage PowerShell for their attacks for years. In a recent report, the application was found to be involved in nearly 40% of endpoint security incidents.[43] While attackers have been finding weaknesses in the Windows operating system for years, its clear that theres something problematic with PowerShell scripting.[44]

Some ransomware strains have used proxies tied to Tor hidden services to connect to their command and control servers, increasing the difficulty of tracing the exact location of the criminals.[45][46] Furthermore, dark web vendors have increasingly started to offer the technology as a service.[46][47][48]

Symantec has classified ransomware to be the most dangerous cyber threat.[49]

In August 2010, Russian authorities arrested nine individuals connected to a ransomware Trojan known as WinLock. Unlike the previous Gpcode Trojan, WinLock did not use encryption. Instead, WinLock trivially restricted access to the system by displaying pornographic images, and asked users to send a premium-rate SMS (costing around US$10) to receive a code that could be used to unlock their machines. The scam hit numerous users across Russia and neighboring countriesreportedly earning the group over US$16 million.[14][50]

In 2011, a ransomware Trojan surfaced that imitated the Windows Product Activation notice, and informed users that a system's Windows installation had to be re-activated due to "[being a] victim of fraud". An online activation option was offered (like the actual Windows activation process), but was unavailable, requiring the user to call one of six international numbers to input a 6-digit code. While the malware claimed that this call would be free, it was routed through a rogue operator in a country with high international phone rates, who placed the call on hold, causing the user to incur large international long distance charges.[12]

In February 2013, a ransomware Trojan based on the Stamp.EK exploit kit surfaced; the malware was distributed via sites hosted on the project hosting services SourceForge and GitHub that claimed to offer "fake nude pics" of celebrities.[51] In July 2013, an OS X-specific ransomware Trojan surfaced, which displays a web page that accuses the user of downloading pornography. Unlike its Windows-based counterparts, it does not block the entire computer, but simply exploits the behavior of the web browser itself to frustrate attempts to close the page through normal means.[52]

In July 2013, a 21-year-old man from Virginia, whose computer coincidentally did contain pornographic photographs of underaged girls with whom he had conducted sexualized communications, turned himself in to police after receiving and being deceived by ransomware purporting to be an FBI message accusing him of possessing child pornography. An investigation discovered the incriminating files, and the man was charged with child sexual abuse and possession of child pornography.[53]

The converse of ransomware is a cryptovirology attack invented by Adam L. Young that threatens to publish stolen information from the victim's computer system rather than deny the victim access to it.[54] In a leakware attack, malware exfiltrates sensitive host data either to the attacker or alternatively, to remote instances of the malware, and the attacker threatens to publish the victim's data unless a ransom is paid. The attack was presented at West Point in 2003 and was summarized in the book Malicious Cryptography as follows, "The attack differs from the extortion attack in the following way. In the extortion attack, the victim is denied access to its own valuable information and has to pay to get it back, where in the attack that is presented here the victim retains access to the information but its disclosure is at the discretion of the computer virus".[55] The attack is rooted in game theory and was originally dubbed "non-zero sum games and survivable malware". The attack can yield monetary gain in cases where the malware acquires access to information that may damage the victim user or organization, e.g., reputational damage that could result from publishing proof that the attack itself was a success.

With the increased popularity of ransomware on PC platforms, ransomware targeting mobile operating systems has also proliferated. Typically, mobile ransomware payloads are blockers, as there is little incentive to encrypt data since it can be easily restored via online synchronization.[56] Mobile ransomware typically targets the Android platform, as it allows applications to be installed from third-party sources.[56][57] The payload is typically distributed as an APK file installed by an unsuspecting user; it may attempt to display a blocking message over top of all other applications,[57] while another used a form of clickjacking to cause the user to give it "device administrator" privileges to achieve deeper access to the system.[58]

Different tactics have been used on iOS devices, such as exploiting iCloud accounts and using the Find My iPhone system to lock access to the device.[59] On iOS 10.3, Apple patched a bug in the handling of JavaScript pop-up windows in Safari that had been exploited by ransomware websites.[60]

In 2012, a major ransomware Trojan known as Reveton began to spread. Based on the Citadel Trojan (which itself, is based on the Zeus Trojan), its payload displays a warning purportedly from a law enforcement agency claiming that the computer has been used for illegal activities, such as downloading unlicensed software or child pornography. Due to this behaviour, it is commonly referred to as the "Police Trojan".[61][62][63] The warning informs the user that to unlock their system, they would have to pay a fine using a voucher from an anonymous prepaid cash service such as Ukash or Paysafecard. To increase the illusion that the computer is being tracked by law enforcement, the screen also displays the computer's IP address, while some versions display footage from a victim's webcam to give the illusion that the user is being recorded.[5][64]

Reveton initially began spreading in various European countries in early 2012.[5] Variants were localized with templates branded with the logos of different law enforcement organizations based on the user's country; for example, variants used in the United Kingdom contained the branding of organizations such as the Metropolitan Police Service and the Police National E-Crime Unit. Another version contained the logo of the royalty collection society PRS for Music, which specifically accused the user of illegally downloading music.[65] In a statement warning the public about the malware, the Metropolitan Police clarified that they would never lock a computer in such a way as part of an investigation.[5][13]

In May 2012, Trend Micro threat researchers discovered templates for variations for the United States and Canada, suggesting that its authors may have been planning to target users in North America.[66] By August 2012, a new variant of Reveton began to spread in the United States, claiming to require the payment of a $200 fine to the FBI using a MoneyPak card.[6][7][64] In February 2013, a Russian citizen was arrested in Dubai by Spanish authorities for his connection to a crime ring that had been using Reveton; ten other individuals were arrested on money laundering charges.[67] In August 2014, Avast Software reported that it had found new variants of Reveton that also distribute password stealing malware as part of its payload.[68]

Encrypting ransomware reappeared in September 2013 with a Trojan known as CryptoLocker, which generated a 2048-bit RSA key pair and uploaded in turn to a command-and-control server, and used to encrypt files using a whitelist of specific file extensions. The malware threatened to delete the private key if a payment of Bitcoin or a pre-paid cash voucher was not made within 3 days of the infection. Due to the extremely large key size it uses, analysts and those affected by the Trojan considered CryptoLocker extremely difficult to repair.[22][69][70][71] Even after the deadline passed, the private key could still be obtained using an online tool, but the price would increase to 10 BTCwhich cost approximately US$2300 as of November 2013.[72][73]

CryptoLocker was isolated by the seizure of the Gameover ZeuS botnet as part of Operation Tovar, as officially announced by the U.S. Department of Justice on 2 June 2014. The Department of Justice also publicly issued an indictment against the Russian hacker Evgeniy Bogachev for his alleged involvement in the botnet.[74][75] It was estimated that at least US$3 million was extorted with the malware before the shutdown.[9]

In September 2014, a wave of ransomware Trojans surfaced that first targeted users in Australia, under the names CryptoWall and CryptoLocker (which is, as with CryptoLocker 2.0, unrelated to the original CryptoLocker). The Trojans spread via fraudulent e-mails claiming to be failed parcel delivery notices from Australia Post; to evade detection by automatic e-mail scanners that follow all links on a page to scan for malware, this variant was designed to require users to visit a web page and enter a CAPTCHA code before the payload is actually downloaded, preventing such automated processes from being able to scan the payload. Symantec determined that these new variants, which it identified as CryptoLocker.F, were again, unrelated to the original CryptoLocker due to differences in their operation.[76][77] A notable victim of the Trojans was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; live programming on its television news channel ABC News 24 was disrupted for half an hour and shifted to Melbourne studios due to a CryptoWall infection on computers at its Sydney studio.[78][79][80]

Another Trojan in this wave, TorrentLocker, initially contained a design flaw comparable to CryptoDefense; it used the same keystream for every infected computer, making the encryption trivial to overcome. However, this flaw was later fixed.[35] By late-November 2014, it was estimated that over 9,000 users had been infected by TorrentLocker in Australia alone, trailing only Turkey with 11,700 infections.[81]

Another major ransomware Trojan targeting Windows, CryptoWall, first appeared in 2014. One strain of CryptoWall was distributed as part of a malvertising campaign on the Zedo ad network in late-September 2014 that targeted several major websites; the ads redirected to rogue websites that used browser plugin exploits to download the payload. A Barracuda Networks researcher also noted that the payload was signed with a digital signature in an effort to appear trustworthy to security software.[82] CryptoWall 3.0 used a payload written in JavaScript as part of an email attachment, which downloads executables disguised as JPG images. To further evade detection, the malware creates new instances of explorer.exe and svchost.exe to communicate with its servers. When encrypting files, the malware also deletes volume shadow copies, and installs spyware that steals passwords and Bitcoin wallets.[83]

The FBI reported in June 2015 that nearly 1,000 victims had contacted the bureau's Internet Crime Complaint Center to report CryptoWall infections, and estimated losses of at least $18 million.[10]

The most recent version, CryptoWall 4.0, enhanced its code to avoid antivirus detection, and encrypts not only the data in files but also the file names.[84]

Fusob is one of the major mobile ransomware families. Between April 2015 and March 2016, about 56 percent of accounted mobile ransomware was Fusob.[85]

Like a typical mobile ransomware, it employs scare tactics to extort people to pay a ransom.[86] The program pretends to be an accusatory authority, demanding the victim to pay a fine from $100 to $200 USD or otherwise face a fictitious charge. Rather surprisingly, Fusob suggests using iTunes gift cards for payment. Also, a timer clicking down on the screen adds to the users anxiety as well.

In order to infect devices, Fusob masquerades as a pornographic video player. Thus, victims, thinking it is harmless, unwittingly download Fusob.[87]

When Fusob is installed, it first checks the language used in the device. If it uses Russian or certain Eastern European languages, Fusob does nothing. Otherwise, it proceeds on to lock the device and demand ransom. Among victims, about 40% of them are in Germany with the United Kingdom and the United States following with 14.5% and 11.4% respectively.

Fusob has lots in common with Small, which is another major family of mobile ransomware. They represented over 93% of mobile ransomwares between 2015 and 2016.

In May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack spread through the Internet, using an exploit vector named EternalBlue, which was leaked from the U.S. National Security Agency. The ransomware attack, unprecedented in scale,[88] infected more than 230,000 computers in over 150 countries,[89] using 20 different languages to demand money from users using Bitcoin cryptocurrency. WannaCrypt demanded US$300 per computer.[90] The attack affected Telefnica and several other large companies in Spain, as well as parts of the British National Health Service (NHS), where at least 16 hospitals had to turn away patients or cancel scheduled operations,[91]FedEx, Deutsche Bahn, Honda,[92]Renault, as well as the Russian Interior Ministry and Russian telecom MegaFon.[93] The attackers gave their victims a 7-day deadline from the day their computers got infected, after which the encrypted files would be deleted.[94]

Petya was first discovered in March 2016; unlike other forms of encrypting ransomware, the malware aimed to infect the master boot record, installing a payload which encrypts the file tables of the NTFS file system the next time that the infected system boots, blocking the system from booting into Windows at all until the ransom is paid. Check Point reported that despite what it believed to be an innovative evolution in ransomware design, it had resulted in relatively-fewer infections than other ransomware active around the same time frame.[95]

On June 27, 2017, a heavily modified version of Petya was used for a global cyberattack primarily targeting Ukraine. This version had been modified to propagate using the same EternalBlue exploit that was used by WannaCry. Due to another design change, it is also unable to actually unlock a system after the ransom is paid; this led to security analysts speculating that the attack was not meant to generate illicit profit, but to simply cause disruption.[96][97]

On October 24, 2017, some users in Russia and Ukraine reported a new ransomware attack, named "Bad Rabbit", which follows a similar pattern to WannaCry and Petya by encrypting the user's file tables and then demands a BitCoin payment to decrypt them. ESET believed the ransomware to have been distributed by a bogus update to Adobe Flash software.[98] Among agencies that were affected by the ransomware included Interfax, Odessa International Airport, Kiev Metro, and the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine.[99] As it used corporate network structures to spread, the ransomware was also discovered in other countries, including Turkey, Germany, Poland, Japan, South Korea, and the United States.[100] Experts believed the ransomware attack was tied to the Petya attack in the Ukraine, though the only identity to the culprits are the names of characters from the Game of Thrones series embedded within the code.[100]

Security experts found that the ransomware did not use the EternalBlue exploit to spread, and a simple method to vaccinate an unaffected machine running older Windows versions was found by October 24, 2017.[101][102] Further, the sites that had been used to spread the bogus Flash updating have gone offline or removed the problematic files within a few days of its discovery, effectively killing off the spread of Bad Rabbit.[100]

As with other forms of malware, security software (antivirus software) might not detect a ransomware payload, or, especially in the case of encrypting payloads, only after encryption is under way or complete, particularly if a new version unknown to the protective software is distributed.[103] If an attack is suspected or detected in its early stages, it takes some time for encryption to take place; immediate removal of the malware (a relatively simple process) before it has completed would stop further damage to data, without salvaging any already lost.[104][105]

Security experts have suggested precautionary measures for dealing with ransomware. Using software or other security policies to block known payloads from launching will help to prevent infection, but will not protect against all attacks[22][106] Keeping "offline" backups of data stored in locations inaccessible from any potentially infected computer, such as external storage drives or devices that do not have any access to any network (including the Internet), prevents them from being accessed by the ransomware. Installing security updates issued by software vendors can mitigate the vulnerabilities leveraged by certain strains to propagate.[107][108][109][110][111] Other measures include cyber hygiene exercising caution when opening e-mail attachments and links, network segmentation, and keeping critical computers isolated from networks.[112][113] Furthermore, to mitigate the spread of ransomware measures of infection control can be applied.[114] Such may include disconnecting infected machines from all networks, educational programs,[115] effective communication channels, malware surveillance[original research?] and ways of collective participation[114]

There are a number of tools intended specifically to decrypt files locked by ransomware, although successful recovery may not be possible.[2][116] If the same encryption key is used for all files, decryption tools use files for which there are both uncorrupted backups and encrypted copies (a known-plaintext attack in the jargon of cryptanalysis); recovery of the key, if it is possible, may take several days.[117] Free ransomware decryption tools can help decrypt files encrypted by the following forms of ransomware: AES_NI, Alcatraz Locker, Apocalypse, BadBlock, Bart, BTCWare, Crypt888, CryptoMix, CrySiS, EncrypTile, FindZip, Globe, Hidden Tear, Jigsaw, LambdaLocker, Legion, NoobCrypt, Stampado, SZFLocker, TeslaCrypt, XData.[118]

The publication of proof-of-concept attack code is common among academic researchers and vulnerability researchers. It teaches the nature of the threat, conveys the gravity of the issues, and enables countermeasures to be devised and put into place. However, lawmakers with the support of law-enforcement bodies are contemplating making the creation of ransomware illegal. In the state of Maryland the original draft of HB 340 made it a felony to create ransomware, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[119] However, this provision was removed from the final version of the bill.[120] A minor in Japan was arrested for creating and distributing ransomware code.[121] Young and Yung have had the ANSI C source code to a ransomware cryptotrojan on-line, at cryptovirology.com, since 2005 as part of a cryptovirology book being written. The source code to the cryptotrojan is still live on the Internet and is associated with a draft of Chapter 2.[122]

Read this article:
Ransomware - Wikipedia

security – Fundamental difference between Hashing and …

Well, you could look it up in Wikipedia... But since you want an explanation, I'll do my best here:

They provide a mapping between an arbitrary length input, and a (usually) fixed length (or smaller length) output. It can be anything from a simple crc32, to a full blown cryptographic hash function such as MD5 or SHA1/2/256/512. The point is that there's a one-way mapping going on. It's always a many:1 mapping (meaning there will always be collisions) since every function produces a smaller output than it's capable of inputting (If you feed every possible 1mb file into MD5, you'll get a ton of collisions).

The reason they are hard (or impossible in practicality) to reverse is because of how they work internally. Most cryptographic hash functions iterate over the input set many times to produce the output. So if we look at each fixed length chunk of input (which is algorithm dependent), the hash function will call that the current state. It will then iterate over the state and change it to a new one and use that as feedback into itself (MD5 does this 64 times for each 512bit chunk of data). It then somehow combines the resultant states from all these iterations back together to form the resultant hash.

Now, if you wanted to decode the hash, you'd first need to figure out how to split the given hash into its iterated states (1 possibility for inputs smaller than the size of a chunk of data, many for larger inputs). Then you'd need to reverse the iteration for each state. Now, to explain why this is VERY hard, imagine trying to deduce a and b from the following formula: 10 = a + b. There are 10 positive combinations of a and b that can work. Now loop over that a bunch of times: tmp = a + b; a = b; b = tmp. For 64 iterations, you'd have over 10^64 possibilities to try. And that's just a simple addition where some state is preserved from iteration to iteration. Real hash functions do a lot more than 1 operation (MD5 does about 15 operations on 4 state variables). And since the next iteration depends on the state of the previous and the previous is destroyed in creating the current state, it's all but impossible to determine the input state that led to a given output state (for each iteration no less). Combine that, with the large number of possibilities involved, and decoding even an MD5 will take a near infinite (but not infinite) amount of resources. So many resources that it's actually significantly cheaper to brute-force the hash if you have an idea of the size of the input (for smaller inputs) than it is to even try to decode the hash.

They provide a 1:1 mapping between an arbitrary length input and output. And they are always reversible. The important thing to note is that it's reversible using some method. And it's always 1:1 for a given key. Now, there are multiple input:key pairs that might generate the same output (in fact there usually are, depending on the encryption function). Good encrypted data is indistinguishable from random noise. This is different from a good hash output which is always of a consistent format.

Use a hash function when you want to compare a value but can't store the plain representation (for any number of reasons). Passwords should fit this use-case very well since you don't want to store them plain-text for security reasons (and shouldn't). But what if you wanted to check a filesystem for pirated music files? It would be impractical to store 3 mb per music file. So instead, take the hash of the file, and store that (md5 would store 16 bytes instead of 3mb). That way, you just hash each file and compare to the stored database of hashes (This doesn't work as well in practice because of re-encoding, changing file headers, etc, but it's an example use-case).

Use a hash function when you're checking validity of input data. That's what they are designed for. If you have 2 pieces of input, and want to check to see if they are the same, run both through a hash function. The probability of a collision is astronomically low for small input sizes (assuming a good hash function). That's why it's recommended for passwords. For passwords up to 32 characters, md5 has 4 times the output space. SHA1 has 6 times the output space (approximately). SHA512 has about 16 times the output space. You don't really care what the password was, you care if it's the same as the one that was stored. That's why you should use hashes for passwords.

Use encryption whenever you need to get the input data back out. Notice the word need. If you're storing credit card numbers, you need to get them back out at some point, but don't want to store them plain text. So instead, store the encrypted version and keep the key as safe as possible.

Hash functions are also great for signing data. For example, if you're using HMAC, you sign a piece of data by taking a hash of the data concatenated with a known but not transmitted value (a secret value). So, you send the plain-text and the HMAC hash. Then, the receiver simply hashes the submitted data with the known value and checks to see if it matches the transmitted HMAC. If it's the same, you know it wasn't tampered with by a party without the secret value. This is commonly used in secure cookie systems by HTTP frameworks, as well as in message transmission of data over HTTP where you want some assurance of integrity in the data.

A key feature of cryptographic hash functions is that they should be very fast to create, and very difficult/slow to reverse (so much so that it's practically impossible). This poses a problem with passwords. If you store sha512(password), you're not doing a thing to guard against rainbow tables or brute force attacks. Remember, the hash function was designed for speed. So it's trivial for an attacker to just run a dictionary through the hash function and test each result.

Adding a salt helps matters since it adds a bit of unknown data to the hash. So instead of finding anything that matches md5(foo), they need to find something that when added to the known salt produces md5(foo.salt) (which is very much harder to do). But it still doesn't solve the speed problem since if they know the salt it's just a matter of running the dictionary through.

So, there are ways of dealing with this. One popular method is called key strengthening (or key stretching). Basically, you iterate over a hash many times (thousands usually). This does two things. First, it slows down the runtime of the hashing algorithm significantly. Second, if implemented right (passing the input and salt back in on each iteration) actually increases the entropy (available space) for the output, reducing the chances of collisions. A trivial implementation is:

There are other, more standard implementations such as PBKDF2, BCrypt. But this technique is used by quite a few security related systems (such as PGP, WPA, Apache and OpenSSL).

The bottom line, hash(password) is not good enough. hash(password + salt) is better, but still not good enough... Use a stretched hash mechanism to produce your password hashes...

Do not under any circumstances feed the output of one hash directly back into the hash function:

The reason for this has to do with collisions. Remember that all hash functions have collisions because the possible output space (the number of possible outputs) is smaller than then input space. To see why, let's look at what happens. To preface this, let's make the assumption that there's a 0.001% chance of collision from sha1() (it's much lower in reality, but for demonstration purposes).

Now, hash1 has a probability of collision of 0.001%. But when we do the next hash2 = sha1(hash1);, all collisions of hash1 automatically become collisions of hash2. So now, we have hash1's rate at 0.001%, and the 2nd sha1() call adds to that. So now, hash2 has a probability of collision of 0.002%. That's twice as many chances! Each iteration will add another 0.001% chance of collision to the result. So, with 1000 iterations, the chance of collision jumped from a trivial 0.001% to 1%. Now, the degradation is linear, and the real probabilities are far smaller, but the effect is the same (an estimation of the chance of a single collision with md5 is about 1/(2128) or 1/(3x1038). While that seems small, thanks to the birthday attack it's not really as small as it seems).

Instead, by re-appending the salt and password each time, you're re-introducing data back into the hash function. So any collisions of any particular round are no longer collisions of the next round. So:

Has the same chance of collision as the native sha512 function. Which is what you want. Use that instead.

Read more here:
security - Fundamental difference between Hashing and ...

BitLocker Drive Encryption Overview – technet.microsoft.com

BitLocker Drive Encryption is a data protection feature available Windows Server2008R2 and in some editions of Windows7. Having BitLocker integrated with the operating system addresses the threats of data theft or exposure from lost, stolen, or inappropriately decommissioned computers.

Data on a lost or stolen computer is vulnerable to unauthorized access, either by running a software-attack tool against it or by transferring the computer's hard disk to a different computer. BitLocker helps mitigate unauthorized data access by enhancing file and system protections. BitLocker also helps render data inaccessible when BitLocker-protected computers are decommissioned or recycled.

BitLocker provides the most protection when used with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) version1.2. The TPM is a hardware component installed in many newer computers by the computer manufacturers. It works with BitLocker to help protect user data and to ensure that a computer has not been tampered with while the system was offline.

On computers that do not have a TPM version1.2, you can still use BitLocker to encrypt the Windows operating system drive. However, this implementation will require the user to insert a USB startup key to start the computer or resume from hibernation, and it does not provide the pre-startup system integrity verification offered by BitLocker with a TPM.

In addition to the TPM, BitLocker offers the option to lock the normal startup process until the user supplies a personal identification number (PIN) or inserts a removable device, such as a USB flash drive, that contains a startup key. These additional security measures provide multifactor authentication and assurance that the computer will not start or resume from hibernation until the correct PIN or startup key is presented.

BitLocker can use a TPM to verify the integrity of early boot components and boot configuration data. This helps ensure that BitLocker makes the encrypted drive accessible only if those components have not been tampered with and the encrypted drive is located in the original computer.

BitLocker helps ensure the integrity of the startup process by taking the following actions:

To use BitLocker, a computer must satisfy certain requirements:

BitLocker is installed automatically as part of the operating system installation. However, BitLocker is not enabled until it is turned on by using the BitLocker setup wizard, which can be accessed from either the Control Panel or by right-clicking the drive in Windows Explorer.

At any time after installation and initial operating system setup, the system administrator can use the BitLocker setup wizard to initialize BitLocker. There are two steps in the initialization process:

When a local administrator initializes BitLocker, the administrator should also create a recovery password or a recovery key. Without a recovery key or recovery password, all data on the encrypted drive may be inaccessible and unrecoverable if there is a problem with the BitLocker-protected drive.

For detailed information about configuring and deploying BitLocker, see the Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption Step-by-Step Guide (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=140225).

BitLocker can use an enterprise's existing Active Directory Domain Services (ADDS) infrastructure to remotely store recovery keys. BitLocker provides a wizard for setup and management, as well as extensibility and manageability through a Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) interface with scripting support. BitLocker also has a recovery console integrated into the early boot process to enable the user or helpdesk personnel to regain access to a locked computer.

For more information about writing scripts for BitLocker, see Win32_EncryptableVolume (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=85983).

Many personal computers today are reused by people other than the computer's initial owner or user. In enterprise scenarios, computers may be redeployed to other departments, or they might be recycled as part of a standard computer hardware refresh cycle.

On unencrypted drives, data may remain readable even after the drive has been formatted. Enterprises often make use of multiple overwrites or physical destruction to reduce the risk of exposing data on decommissioned drives.

BitLocker can help create a simple, cost-effective decommissioning process. By leaving data encrypted by BitLocker and then removing the keys, an enterprise can permanently reduce the risk of exposing this data. It becomes nearly impossible to access BitLocker-encrypted data after removing all BitLocker keys because this would require cracking 128-bit or 256-bit AES encryption.

BitLocker cannot protect a computer against all possible attacks. For example, if malicious users, or programs such as viruses or rootkits, have access to the computer before it is lost or stolen, they might be able to introduce weaknesses through which they can later access encrypted data. And BitLocker protection can be compromised if the USB startup key is left in the computer, or if the PIN or Windows logon password are not kept secret.

The TPM-only authentication mode is easiest to deploy, manage, and use. It might also be more appropriate for computers that are unattended or must restart while unattended. However, the TPM-only mode offers the least amount of data protection. If parts of your organization have data that is considered highly sensitive on mobile computers, consider deploying BitLocker with multifactor authentication on those computers.

For more information about BitLocker security considerations, see Data Encryption Toolkit for Mobile PCs (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=85982).

For servers in a shared or potentially non-secure environment, such as a branch office location, BitLocker can be used to encrypt the operating system drive and additional data drives on the same server.

By default, BitLocker is not installed with Windows Server2008R2. Add BitLocker from the Windows Server2008R2 Server Manager page. You must restart after installing BitLocker on a server. Using WMI, you can enable BitLocker remotely.

BitLocker is supported on Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) servers that use a 64-bit processor architecture.

After the drive has been encrypted and protected with BitLocker, local and domain administrators can use the Manage BitLocker page in the BitLocker Drive Encryption item in Control Panel to change the password to unlock the drive, remove the password from the drive, add a smart card to unlock the drive, save or print the recovery key again, automatically unlock the drive, duplicate keys, and reset the PIN.

An administrator may want to temporarily disable BitLocker in certain scenarios, such as:

These scenarios are collectively referred to as the computer upgrade scenario. BitLocker can be enabled or disabled through the BitLocker Drive Encryption item in Control Panel.

The following steps are necessary to upgrade a BitLocker-protected computer:

Forcing BitLocker into disabled mode will keep the drive encrypted, but the drive master key will be encrypted with a symmetric key stored unencrypted on the hard disk. The availability of this unencrypted key disables the data protection offered by BitLocker but ensures that subsequent computer startups succeed without further user input. When BitLocker is enabled again, the unencrypted key is removed from the disk and BitLocker protection is turned back on. Additionally, the drive master key is keyed and encrypted again.

Moving the encrypted drive (that is, the physical disk) to another BitLocker-protected computer does not require any additional steps because the key protecting the drive master key is stored unencrypted on the disk.

For detailed information about disabling BitLocker, see Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption Step-by-Step Guide (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=140225).

A number of scenarios can trigger a recovery process, for example:

An administrator can also trigger recovery as an access control mechanism (for example, during computer redeployment). An administrator may decide to lock an encrypted drive and require that users obtain BitLocker recovery information to unlock the drive.

Using Group Policy, an IT administrator can choose which recovery methods to require, deny, or make optional for users who enable BitLocker. The recovery password can be stored in ADDS, and the administrator can make this option mandatory, prohibited, or optional for each user of the computer. Additionally, the recovery data can be stored on a USB flash drive.

The recovery password is a 48-digit, randomly generated number that can be created during BitLocker setup. If the computer enters recovery mode, the user will be prompted to type this password by using the function keys (F0 through F9). The recovery password can be managed and copied after BitLocker is enabled. Using the Manage BitLocker page in the BitLocker Drive Encryption item in Control Panel, the recovery password can be printed or saved to a file for future use.

A domain administrator can configure Group Policy to generate recovery passwords automatically and back them up to ADDS as soon as BitLocker is enabled. The domain administrator can also choose to prevent BitLocker from encrypting a drive unless the computer is connected to the network and ADDS backup of the recovery password is successful.

The recovery key can be created and saved to a USB flash drive during BitLocker setup; it can also be managed and copied after BitLocker is enabled. If the computer enters recovery mode, the user will be prompted to insert the recovery key into the computer.

The rest is here:
BitLocker Drive Encryption Overview - technet.microsoft.com

Comodo Disk Encryption Download – softpedia.com

Comodo Disk Encryption is a reliable application that protects your sensitive data by encrypting your drives using complex algorithms.

It provides you with two different methods of securing your information. Either you encrypt any drive partition that contains personal information using combinations of different hashing and encryption algorithms or simply mount the virtual partitions in your hard drive, then save your data.

Since the encryption process can be carried out with two different authentication types, namely Password and USB Stick, the application helps you to add an extra layer of security, thus protecting your critical data from unauthorized users.

When you launch Comodo Disk Encryption for the first time, you will notice that all your drives are automatically recognized (after a restart has been performed). When you click on a random partition, detailed information such as file system, free space, encryption method and total size are displayed in the bottom pane of the program.

The right-click menu enables you to easily encrypt or decrypt the selected partition, edit the available settings, as well as format it by modifying the file system to NTFS, FAT32 or FAT and the allocation unit size.

By accessing the Encrypt option, you are able to choose one of the available authentication types, then set the properties according to your whims such as hash algorithm and password.

The 'Virtual Drives' tab enables you to view all the mounted drives in your system and create, mount, remove or unmount them, as well as edit the encryption settings effortlessly.

In case you want to decrypt a drive, you will just have to choose the proper option from the context menu and bring back the partition to its original form so that the drive becomes accessible for any user.

Overall, Comodo Disk Encryption keeps all your sensitive data protected from hackers, thieves and online scammers by encrypting your hard disks with ease.

See the rest here:
Comodo Disk Encryption Download - softpedia.com