this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
483 points (94.5% liked)

Privacy

32103 readers
952 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thayer@lemmy.ca 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

While it would certainly be nice to see this addressed, I don't recall Signal ever claiming their desktop app provided encryption at rest. I would also think that anyone worried about that level of privacy would be using disappearing messages and/or regularly wiping their history.

That said, this is just one of the many reasons why whole disk encryption should be the default for all mainstream operating systems today, and why per-app permissions and storage are increasingly important too.

[–] ooterness@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Full disk encryption doesn't help with this threat model at all. A rogue program running on the same machine can still access all the files.

[–] thayer@lemmy.ca 18 points 4 months ago

It does help greatly in general though, because all of your data will be encrypted when the device is at rest. Theft and B&Es will no longer present a risk to your privacy.

Per-app permissions address this specific threat model directly. Containerized apps, such as those provided by Flatpak can ensure that apps remain sandboxed and unable to access data without explicit authorization.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

Exactly.

I'll admit to being lazy and not enabling encryption on my Windows laptops. But if I deployed something for someone, it would be encrypted.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I don’t recall Signal ever claiming their desktop app provided encryption at rest.

I'm not sure if they've claimed that, but it does that using SQLCipher.

[–] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Does encrypting your disks change something for the end user in day to day usage? I'm honest, I've never used encrypted disks in my life.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Whole disk encryption wouldn't change your daily usage, no. It just means that when you boot your PC you have to enter your passphrase. And if your device becomes unbootable for whatever reason, and you want to access your drive, you'll just have to decrypt it first to be able to read it/write to it, e.g. if you want to rescue files from a bricked computer. But there's no reason not to encrypt your drive. I can't think of any downsides.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If any part of the data gets corrupted you lose the whole thing. Recovery tools can't work with partially corrupted encrypted data.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

I don't think that's a big deal with Signal data. You can log back into your account, you'd just lose your messages. idk how most people use Signal but I have disappearing messages on for everything anyway, and if a message is that important to you then back it up.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It depends on how you set it up. I think the default in some cases (like Windows Bitlocker) is to store the key in TPM, so everything becomes transparent to the user at that point, although many disagree with this method for privacy/security reasons.

The other method is to provide a password or keyfile during bootup, which does change something for the end user somewhat.

[–] devfuuu@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's transparent for end user basically, but protects the laptop at least when outside and if someone steals the computer. As long as it was properly shutdown.

[–] ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Define properly shut down. Do your thieves usually ask first?

[–] refalo@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think they're just referring to an outdated concept of OSes with non-journaling filesystems that can cause data corruption if the disk is shut off abruptly, which in theory could corrupt the entire disk at once if it was encrypted at a device level. But FDE was never used in the time of such filesystems anyways.

[–] devfuuu@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you suspend the laptop when moving locations instead of shutting down or hibernating to disk then disk encryption is useless.

[–] thayer@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

Most operating systems will require your desktop password upon resume, and most thieves are low-functioning drug users who are not about to go Hacker Man on your laptop. They will most likely just wipe the system and install something else; if they can even figure that out.

[–] thayer@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

No, the average user will never know the difference. I couldn't tell you exactly what the current performance impact is for hardware encryption, but it's likely around 1-4% depending on the platform (I use LUKS under Linux).

For gamers, it's likely a 1-5 FPS loss, depending on your hardware, which is negligible in my experience. I play mostly first and third person shooter-style games at 1440p/120hz, targeting 60-90 FPS, and there's no noticeable impact (Ryzen 5600 / RX 6800XT).

[–] refalo@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

For gamers, it’s likely a 1-5 FPS loss

I highly doubt it... would love to see some hard data on that. Most algorithms used for disk encryption these days are already faster than RAM, and most games are not reading gigabytes/sec from the disk every frame during gameplay for this to ever matter.

[–] ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

If it has to go to disk for immediate loading of assets while playing a video game you're losing more than 1-5 fps

[–] refalo@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Maybe, but not every frame while you're playing. No game is loading gigs of data every frame. That would be the only way most encryption algorithms would slow you down.

[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You're more likely going to get stuttering or asset streaming issues which are going to have more impact than losing a few fps.

[–] ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah was thinking about that (edited to add immediate) -- games are certainly background loading nowadays but the stuff needed is intended to be in ram by the time it's needed, afaik.

[–] thayer@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of variables there. I can only say that in my experience, I noticed zero impact to gaming performance when I started encrypting everything about 10 years ago. No stuttering or noticeable frame loss. It was a seamless experience and brings real peace of mind knowing that our financial info, photos, and other sensitive files are safely locked away.

[–] ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

For sure I'm just saying i'd guess that's because at play time you're loading everything into ram. For bulk loading I would encryption perf follows the general use case.

(Tldr encryption shouldn't matter for games)