Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 16 11:38, Christian Franke wrote:
Another un?documented Windows behavior -- occasionally useful in this case
:)
Ok. Maybe as a <note>?
I'm not sure because unlike the other note nearby it is not a cautionary
note. Alternative patch attached. Please vote :)
--
Regards,
Christian
From ad01fd61e107fddc19ddd2c439c5b8860b2cd903 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Franke <christian.fra...@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 17:18:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Cygwin: doc: add note about raw devices of BitLocker
partitions
Signed-off-by: Christian Franke <christian.fra...@t-online.de>
---
winsup/doc/specialnames.xml | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/winsup/doc/specialnames.xml b/winsup/doc/specialnames.xml
index 02375e737..c2c5d0060 100644
--- a/winsup/doc/specialnames.xml
+++ b/winsup/doc/specialnames.xml
@@ -361,6 +361,13 @@ the information between
<filename>/proc/partitions</filename> and the
<command>df</command> output, you should be able to figure out which
external drive corresponds to which raw disk device name.</para>
+<note><para>Raw devices of partitions protected by BitLocker provide access
+to the <emphasis>decrypted</emphasis> NTFS image. If the partition is
+locked, read attempts fail with <literal>Permission denied</literal>. The
+corresponding block range from the raw device of the full disk provides
+access to the <emphasis>encrypted</emphasis> image as stored on the
+disk.</para></note>
+
<note><para>Apart from tape devices which are not block devices and are
by default accessed directly, accessing mass storage devices raw
is something you should only do if you know what you're doing and know how to
--
2.45.1
