Dr.Chi Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Does anyone know what simularities/differences there is between Bitlocker and PGP's Drive Encryption? (I know PGP does other stuff, like email enc, but I'm specifically comparing the drive encryption portions). There's a guy at my work claiming that our Corporate-Wide PGP implementation can be "scrapped" for Bitlocker. Basically he watched one webinar on Vista 2 months ago and now he's running around yelling; "Bitlocker is teh awezome!!!11!!1!1oneone!!" I don't know enough about bitlocker to have a good opinion on it, but my assumption is since it's free it's not going to be as good as Corporate PGP for drive encryption. p.s. I've googled this, but can't find a good comparison, or even unbiased review, from someone who's used each of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Kitchen Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Well, having used neither I can at least chime in and offer this advice. Don't base your review on the cost of the software. In fact, some of the best software is free. That said I'd hardly call bitlocker free, you're paying for it with the operating system. Encryption algorithms aside I think whats more important in a corporate situation is ease of use, rollout, adoption, training, support, etc. Personally I use a double-ROT-13 encryption system on all of my files and I've never had a problem with Hacke+++ NO CARRIER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeoneE1se Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Well, having used neither I can at least chime in and offer this advice. Don't base your review on the cost of the software. In fact, some of the best software is free. That said I'd hardly call bitlocker free, you're paying for it with the operating system. Encryption algorithms aside I think whats more important in a corporate situation is ease of use, rollout, adoption, training, support, etc.Personally I use a double-ROT-13 encryption system on all of my files and I've never had a problem with Hacke+++ NO CARRIER oh please aardwolf double-ROT-13 is SO insecure... you should at least be using quad-rot-13!!!!111oneone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickarse Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 PGP is a current solution for those who don't have the extra money to drop on Vista and everything that comes with it. If your company has money to BURN on TIME, TRAINING, TESTING then it's possibly a good deal because it's built in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Chi Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 I appreciate everyone's input. And I am certainly not one to doubt the powers of "Open Source", by any means. @kickarse, PGP is not the current solution for companys with no money though...it costs us 20-30 thousand yearly. And that's just for maintenance contracts through PGP. It cost us a butt-ton of money to initially buy and set up. Though that included the hardware appliance, email encryption, etc. More than just the desktop encryption portion that I'm comparing right now. Keep in mind though, I'm speaking from my "Corp SysAdmin" hat. Personally I don't trust closed source companies (like PGP corp) nearly as much. But back to the point, does anyone know how they compare technically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickarse Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I appreciate everyone's input.And I am certainly not one to doubt the powers of "Open Source", by any means. @kickarse, PGP is not the current solution for companys with no money though...it costs us 20-30 thousand yearly. And that's just for maintenance contracts through PGP. It cost us a butt-ton of money to initially buy and set up. Though that included the hardware appliance, email encryption, etc. More than just the desktop encryption portion that I'm comparing right now. Keep in mind though, I'm speaking from my "Corp SysAdmin" hat. Personally I don't trust closed source companies (like PGP corp) nearly as much. But back to the point, does anyone know how they compare technically? What I meant is that it's cheaper to do PGP than to do Vista. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Chi Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Oh yeah, I see what you mean, and you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt_Josh Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 What I meant is that it's cheaper to do PGP than to do Vista. Maybe not, depending on the volume licenceing for the company. I haven't had a chance to checkout bitlocker yet, so I can't compare between the two, sorry Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigjimbo Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 BitLocker also needs the TPM hardware to function 100% if im not mistaken. Also with how crappy EFS was...I would hold out before deploying BitLocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binary_Bandit Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Has anyone tried TrueCrypt? Its free and from what I've seen about Bitlocker and PGP this one seems pretty cool for a free program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickarse Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 TrueCrypt doesn't allow whole disc encryption out of the box... PGP and Bitlocker allow single signon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kateweb Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Well, having used neither I can at least chime in and offer this advice. Don't base your review on the cost of the software. In fact, some of the best software is free. That said I'd hardly call bitlocker free, you're paying for it with the operating system. Encryption algorithms aside I think whats more important in a corporate situation is ease of use, rollout, adoption, training, support, etc.Personally I use a double-ROT-13 encryption system on all of my files and I've never had a problem with Hacke+++ NO CARRIER I saw double-ROT-13 and thought o ghods,your not using ROT-26 are you ? but I know you better then that, anyway your company may or may not need full disk encryption, if not then truecrypt may be a good choice but the cost of retraining could be a little hefty and the danger of someone not encrypting something that need to be, will be their. I have not used PGP or bitlocker so I can not speak for either one of them 20-30 G's a year is a ton of cash that could probably be better spent elseware . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 I think the double ROT13 thing is pretty obviously a joke. I've seen it before as a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickarse Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 PGP Whole Disc Encryption (i've been looking into it for work) v.9.5 is around $165 for a perpetual license, but you also want the universal server for key backups, etc. It's also fully compliant with imaging software and uses a single signon. It's steep, might be best to upgrade. I mean business oem with a volume key is what $100 per key plus medium? As for BitLocker, I'm not exactly sure if it works with imaging, it should work with Sysprep. I mean this is Microsoft, one hand DOES talk to the other one, doesn't it? The problem is the needed hardware to run Vista properly, PGP doesn't need any upgrades and as I've been told, can run on just about anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a5an0 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 I don't trust any cryptosystem where I can't see the source. that doesn't mean open-source, I'm talking about seeing the source for the encryption algorithm. for example, pgp isn't open-source in a gpl kinda way, but you can see the source to verify integrity. I havn't been able to find such a thing for bitlocker, so I would stay away. They claim it's 128 bit AES, but how do you know it's properly implimented, etc. I use trucrypt, and a few home-brew python scripts for all my crypto needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyrancher82 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I don't trust any cryptosystem where I can't see the source. that doesn't mean open-source, I'm talking about seeing the source for the encryption algorithm. for example, pgp isn't open-source in a gpl kinda way, but you can see the source to verify integrity. I havn't been able to find such a thing for bitlocker, so I would stay away. They claim it's 128 bit AES, but how do you know it's properly implimented, etc. I use trucrypt, and a few home-brew python scripts for all my crypto needs. Because if it's not 128 bit AES they can be sued for false advertising ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Because if it's not 128 bit AES they can be sued for false advertising ;) Have they done any advertising in which they says it's AES? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyrancher82 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Have they done any advertising in which they says it's AES? How did you find out it was AES.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 How did you find out it was AES.... I read it in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyrancher82 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Well the person who said it was, must have heard it from somewhere. If Microsoft wrote anywhere that it was AES (blah blah), then people found out it wasn't, then it was advertised falsely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Well the person who said it was, must have heard it from somewhere. If Microsoft wrote anywhere that it was AES (blah blah), then people found out it wasn't, then it was advertised falsely. Well, there is a difference between saying it in an article, blog or documentation and in an advertisement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyrancher82 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 There is no difference at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 There is no difference at all. Not unless you mean in law, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.