BITLOCKER vs. NANO LEDGER

[ggbtctalk000]

Instead of using nano ledger, one might be normal USB hard drive to copy all its 12-word key and encrypt the drive using Windows bitlocker.

Once drive is encrypted, you'd need to remember the master key. There are two options for master key, one is TPM (less desirable because key is stored on TPM which is bound to that particular PC). Other option is password option.

There is also option to unlock automatically with certain laptop and CPU if you want and another option is always ask for password.

It will also help to remember the Windows version to which the drive was encrypted first because  some of the bitlocker on certain Windows Server is not compatible and some version of Windows simply does not support bitlocker. I can not give more details on it.

[1715093383]

1715093383

[1715093383]

1715093383

[1715093383]

1715093383

[HCP]

And how exactly do you propose to use this encrypted 12 word seed? It's great that it is secured on a USB key, but it isnt really a functional wallet unless you can somehow receive (and/or) send funds from it.

Plus, once you enter the password to decrypt the container to use it... it is immediately readable by any process on the PC including Malware... as opposes to a hardware wallet, where you simply cannot read the seed data from the secure element, the functionality doesnt exist (excluding disassembly of the device and hardware hacking).

This could potentially be a useful way to store the backup of your seed somewhat securely tho... although arguably paper works just as well

[bob123]

As HCP already mentioned, the moment you decrypt your USB it will get exposed to your pc and any malware on it.

Additionally, you should not rely too much on encryption by bitlocker. Please keep in mind.. its made by microsoft. We all know how good and safe windows is compared to linux..
If you want to rely on the software you use to encrypt your files, i would suggest you take a look at VeraCrypt (https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Home.html).
They are the successor of TrueCrypt and are probably the most reliable.

A hardware wallet is not designed as a encrypted place of long term storage.
Its designed to be a completely secured device (wallet) which can be used for every-days transactions without going through a lot of hassle to access the functions of a wallet.

[ggbtctalk000]

As HCP already mentioned, the moment you decrypt your USB it will get exposed to your pc and any malware on it.

Additionally, you should not rely too much on encryption by bitlocker. Please keep in mind.. its made by microsoft. We all know how good and safe windows is compared to linux..
If you want to rely on the software you use to encrypt your files, i would suggest you take a look at VeraCrypt (https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Home.html).
They are the successor of TrueCrypt and are probably the most reliable.

A hardware wallet is not designed as a encrypted place of long term storage.
Its designed to be a completely secured device (wallet) which can be used for every-days transactions without going through a lot of hassle to access the functions of a wallet.

if you think linux is somewhat safer than windows, you got into false sense of security. In fact, linux deemed more insecure than windows becaise it gives people false sense of security. Studying history of linux and realizing how inconsistent, disorganized the linux files are spread out will give a picture. Be aware that it is not my word and I am simply relaying.  I can back up my statement with technical disussion in forums I frequented, but I am too lazy for that and nor interested in arguing. Because I think both of them (win, lin) suck their own way.

Secondly, I posted this as an alternative option to consider did not mention anything about neither of nano or bitlocker's safety.

[bob123]

if you think linux is somewhat safer than windows, you got into false sense of security.

You obviously got no clue what you are talking about.
Alone the simple fact that 95%+ of malware is written for windows makes linux safer for storing sensible data.
Windows with 300+ processes from start up compared to 30 in UNIX makes it hard to guess which is more error-prone.

In fact, linux deemed more insecure than windows becaise it gives people false sense of security.

Completely retarded statement.

Studying history of linux and realizing how inconsistent, disorganized the linux files are spread out will give a picture.

UNIX and WIN are using different file systems. So what? Please educate yourself before posting nonsense.
You obviously never compared how file access is handled of WIN to UNIX.

I can back up my statement with technical disussion in forums I frequented, but I am too lazy for that and nor interested in arguing.

You surely can back up all your statements.. whether it makes sense is the question.
I'm glad you are not interested in arguing.. maybe go and read a bit about IT security regarding WIN/UNIX kernel ?

Be aware that it is not my word and I am simply relaying.

You should rather start thinking about the stuff you read on the internet instead of simply quoting it.

[ggbtctalk000]

glad i obviously enraged you 
yes i wont argued because i just know for certain
LINUX SUCKS, and U2.