I was recently intrigued to learn that only half of the respondents to a survey said that they used disk encryption. Android, iOS, macOS, and Windows have been increasingly using encryption by default. On the other hand, while most Linux installers I’ve encountered include the option to encrypt, it is not selected by default.
Whether it’s a test bench, beater laptop, NAS, or daily driver, I encrypt for peace of mind. Whatever I end up doing on my machines, I can be pretty confident my data won’t end up in the wrong hands if the drive is stolen or lost and can be erased by simply overwriting the LUKS header. Recovering from an unbootable state or copying files out from an encrypted boot drive only takes a couple more commands compared to an unencrypted setup.
But that’s just me and I’m curious to hear what other reasons to encrypt or not to encrypt are out there.
I don’t think I encrypt my drives and the main reason is it’s usually not a one-click process. I’m also not sure of the benefits from a personal perspective. If the government gets my drives I assume they’ll crack it in no time. If a hacker gets into my PC or a virus I’m assuming it will run while the drive is in an unencrypted state anyway. So I’m assuming it really only protects me from an unsophisticated attacker stealing my drive or machine.
Please educate me if I got this wrong.
Edit: Thanks for the counter points. I’ll look into activating encryption on my machines if they don’t already have it.
is it’s usually not a one-click process
It is, these days. Ubuntu and Fedora, for example. But you still have to select it or it won’t happen. PopOS, being explicitly designed for laptops, has it by default.
If the government gets my drives I assume they’ll crack it in no time.
Depends on your passphrase. If you follow best practice and go with, say, a 25-character passphrase made up of obscure dictionary words, then no, even a state will not be cracking it quickly at all.
If a hacker gets into my PC or a virus I’m assuming it will run while the drive is in an unencrypted state anyway.
Exactly. This is the weak link of disk encryption. You usually need to turn off the machine, i.e. lose the key from memory, in order to get the full benefits. A couple of consolations: (1) In an emergency, you at least have the option of locking it down; just turn it off - even a hard shutdown will do. (2) As you say, only a sophisticated attacker, like the police, will have the skills to break open your screenlocked machine while avoiding any shutdown or reboot.
Another, less obvious, reason for encrypting: it means you can sell the drive, or laptop, without having to wipe it. Encrypted data is inaccessible, by definition.
Encryption of personal data should be the default everywhere. Period.
I don’t for a pretty simple reason. I have a wife, if something ever happened to me then she could end up a creek without a paddle. So by not having it encrypted then, anyone kinda technical can just pull data off the drive.
If that’s the only reason, it’s not a great one. You could solve it by storing the password with your important documents.
I encrypt all my drives. Me and the people I know get occasionally raided by the police. Plus I guess also provides protection for nosy civilians who get their hands on my devices. Unlike most security measures, there is hardly any downside to encrypting your drives—a minor performance hit, not noticeable on modern hardware, and having to type in a password upon boot, which you normally have to do anyway.
Where do you live that you’re getting raided by the police? This sounds like one of those situations where they might use the wrench technique.
I don’t want to say where I live for anonymity reasons, but I will note that it’s fairly standard for political dissidents to be raided by any government so it doesn’t actually particularly narrow down my location.
What’s the wrench technique?
Ah lol sure. It depends on what level of state repression you’re looking at. Regular cops will just not bother trying to decrypt a drive if they don’t have the password and you don’t freely give it up (you have the right to refuse to provide a password here, it’s under the same kind of principle as having the right to not incriminate yourself), but I’m sure military intelligence etc will go to the wrench technique. Also deniable encryption for anything particularly sensitive is good for the old wrench technique.
Absolutely. LUKS full disk encryption. Comes as an opt-in checkbox on Ubuntu, for example.
And I too cannot understand why this is not opt-out rather than opt-in. Apparently we’ve decided that only normies on corporate spyware OSs need security, and we don’t.
Because when shit breaks nobody wants to hear that their data is gone forever
And yet somehow on mobile, where most personal computing is now done, this is not a problem.
Because most of that data is synced to the cloud, icloud or Google photos.
Yep. Unfortunately that’s where we are.
There is a major downside to encryption: If you forget your password or your tpm fails and you’ve not backed things up, then that data is gone forever. If someone doesn’t have anything incriminating or useful to theives on their device, the easier reparability might justify not enabling it.
Why is this a problem for us and not for ordinary dummies on Android? It’s been the default there for years already.
Android has storage encryption by default?
Why do I only need to enter 1 password?
Why would you need to enter 2?
Well, usually you don’t need to enter any password.
I’m referring to a password to unlock the screen.
That’s because you’re probably using biometrics instead.
How would I know? I don’t have to use biometrics when I restart the phone.
Phones make the encryption invisible to the user.
That’s not the case on Linux unless you’re willing to put in a bit of work to set up TPM unlocking yourself or use one of the few distros that use TPM by default, like Aeon.
And even then Aeon’s not perfect. Sooner or later the TPM will fail and you’ll have to enter your long backup password and reenroll the TPM.
Yep. But typing in a password at boot is no big deal and you do then get some of the benefits of encryption. The problem, as you seem to be hinting, is the lockscreen issue. A screenlocked OS without the hardware encryption module is not actually locked down whereas Android, for instance, is. Is that right? I’ve wanted to ask how Android does this - basically, it loses the key and then regenerates it based on biometrics or whatever, each time you unlock, is that it?
