Greentext

• The average user has no need to use Bitlocker
• The average user should be using a local account instead of a Microsoft Account.
• Using a Microsoft Account causes Bitlocker to auto-enable.
• Loss of access to your Microsoft Account when Bitlocker is enabled can cause loss of all your data.
• Microsoft can and will roundly ignore you if you lose access to your Microsoft Account.

Microsoft has painted users into a very dangerous corner. Security is vitally important, but not when it’s almost maliciously implemented.

Even as a security professional I understand that most people will be ill served by having their computer locked down like Fort Knox. There are ways of ensuring security without having all personal content go permanently poof with the slightest wrong move.

https://www.howtogeek.com/821515/its-time-to-stop-dual-booting-linux-and-windows/

This happened when I booted a friend's computer from a live USB Mint stick. It took hours to find the correct password for her account and get Windows running again.

A few years ago Microsoft deleted my Linux ext2 directory when I dual booted to Windows and ran Windows Update.

At this point I'm convinced one of Microsoft's primary business functions is selling malware.

I work in IT and understand that the tradeoff for good security is a reduction in convenience. But this really reads like deliberate punishment. I get the same sense on Apple's platforms. Wanna change your cloud password? Prove you know the unlock code to a device that you no longer own and haven't had in a year. This is especially awesome when your employer makes you change passcodes on a regular basis and you have no idea what you used back then.

Weaponized security. These fuckers booby-trapped usb boot.

I really don’t miss windows. I’m happy with almost everything else but windows. Fischer price macOS is perfectly acceptable to me at this point.

Fuck Liquid Glass though.

Real and fuck Microsoft

...and grounds for committing sudoku. 🤣

Hm... Eclains why all the Linux install tutorials start with: disable secure boot, disable bit locker,...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that greentext doesn't accurately reflect how BitLocker works (unless there's some missing context). Assuming you override the boot order using the one-time boot option and live boot that way, rebooting afterwards won't affect the TPM or BitLocker because nothing has actually changed. If you change the boot order in the BIOS / UEFI settings and move USB boot above the normal boot drive in order to live boot, then the TPM will see a change and BitLocker will lock. But you can just change the boot order back to the way it was and the TPM will be happy again and BitLocker will automatically unlock. Unless you do something really stupid like clearing the TPM altogether.

I guess it's also possible the person didn't just live boot and tried to install Zorin while live booted, which would cause issues, but I doubt that's the case here.

This is partly Microsoft's fault, for sure, but it's also more of a function of how secureboot works. A Linux system using TPM backed FDE with secureboot enabled would have the same problem going the other way.

Secureboot prevents a lot of ways the TPM could be compromised, so as part of "securely" turning it off, it wipes the keys (otherwise those protections would be pointless, the first thing an attacker would do would be to turn off secureboot).

This is probably my fault, big brother Microsoft saw me replace Win11 last month with Linux and don't want real OS's taking up their precious market share.

Microsoft's SSO is an absolute train wreck. I'd rather pound my pecker flat with a mallet than deal with another Microsoft account.

Literally happened to me two days ago. Everything was fine until i installed gpu drivers and then it said "plz give secure boot password" and i had to abort mid install. Also was infront of a fresh linux recruit.

How can something "enable itself" while requiring a password?

dual boot with windows ? good fucking luck