Talk:Encrypting File System

Cryptography: Computer science Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

File system on file system?

Is EFS, so to speak, a file system on another file system (NTFS)? --Abdull 18:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it seems so. From the first external link: "EFS protects sensitive data in files that are stored on disk using the NTFS file system". — Matt Crypto 18:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. EFS is not a file system. It is an add-on to NTFS where the data gets encrypted and some information needed to decrypt the data is stored in a NTFS stream.

— Dominik Weber 6/13/2006

No. EFS is currently described by Microsoft as a component driver, and was previously compared to filesystem filters (which is a reasonable approximation of the net effect). It merely intercepts calls to some APIs such as CreateFile() and performs the decryption needed to service the API request.

User:ParanoidMike 2007/06/14

This article conflicts with it self. The majority of the article says that the files are encrypted with a symetric encryption algorithim with that key that is in turn encrypted asymetrically.

However, the Recovery part of the Security section says that the files are not even encrypted. There are some space/comma problems. Looks like a defacement to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.4 (talk)

only windows

if "encrypting file system" is a windows only thing a disambiguation link at the top would help. I know similar things exist for Mac and Linux. --169.229.215.5 21:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AES or 3DES

The article mentions that both AES and 3DES are used, but does not elaborate further. Which is it, and under what circumstances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo-chan (talk • contribs)

I've added a table called "Algorithms Used by Operating System Version". Does that provide the clarity you're asking for?--ParanoidMike 14:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replay:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\EFS

REG_DWORD value named AlgorithmID.

0x6604: Use the DESX algorithm, which is compatible with all versions of Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

0x6603: Use the 3DES algorithm, which is compatible with all versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

0x6610: Use the AES 256-bit algorithm (the default value, which is only compatible with Windows XP SP1 or later, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista).

Seen on: http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid1_gci935154,00.html?topic=299543 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.191.227 (talk)

Further to this, even if the same encryption algorithm is used by Windows XP (or Windows Server 2003) and Windows Vista, EFS encrypted files accessed, created or modified by Windowd Vista are rendered inaccessible in Windows XP (and Windows Server 2003) despite the files being previously accessible.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/939391 --121.209.113.46 04:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CryptFS

Why does CryptFS redirect to this page? The *Nix FS and the Win FS is different. 74.121.106.7 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common misunderstandings about EFS ?

Are the statements listed there "misunderstandigs" i.e. false, or are they true ? --Xerces8 19:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are definitely false (at least in XP, do not have enough knowledge about 2k). Don't know about the rest. Also they are uncited. So, I think, they should probably be removed for now pending citing and verification. --soum ^talk 07:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section; I agree, they're very ambiguous and unsourced. -- intgr [talk] 13:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Versions with EFS

There is an error while saying that Windows Premium includes EFS.

As seen here: http://www.microsoft.com/latam/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx Windows Home Preimum does not support it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.128.111 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visible file and directory names ?

My experience shows, that even when a volume is encrypted from the root (that is all maps and files), all the file and directory names are visible. They are not encrypted. Usually when "hiding" files, one also don't want the file and folder structure to be visible to others. Is there something to be done ? Some setting that also encrypts the file and directory names ? --Xerces8 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EFS is not used for "hiding" files and folders. Rather it is used to make file data unusable. You can couple it with file/folder permissions to make that folder out of bounds to unauthorized users. --soum ^talk 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using MS EFS and file/folder permissions doesn't give that much protection. Instead you should use some real disk encryption software like TrueCrypt that encrypts the whole disk volume or even better the whole disk. Then nothing is visible for attackers who don't have the password/key, they can't even see if the disk has any files or not.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]