On Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 20:42:59 +1000, Kevin Saenz wrote: >also the article states > >This encryption technology also has the effect of frustrating the >exchange of data needed in a dual boot system. "You could look at >BitLocker as anti-Linux because it frustrates dual boot," Schneier told >El Reg.
That is the paragraph that implied to me that it was more about the data rather than getting it on there: "effect of frustrating the exchange of data". But that could mean just about anything. >>On Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 20:09:25 +1000, Kevin Saenz wrote: >> >>>I'm wondering how they plan to do that? Are they going to encrypt the >>>MBR? I think this is FUD from microsoft again. They are planning on >>>encrypting the drive that windows resides on. I don't know if it's going >>>to effect the MBR, or all partitions on the harddrive. >>> >> >> >>I don't think the article actually said you *couldn't* I think it said it >>made >>it pointless because you can't access the data on the windows partition. >> >>Benno >> >> >> >-- >SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
