<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Summary of Bitlocker Discussions</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/rhalbheer/archive/2009/12/11/summary-of-bitlocker-discussions.aspx</link><description>Last week there was quite some discussion about “successful attacks” on Bitlocker. Those discussions are often quite interesting for me as they show sometimes that people are looking for one technical solution for all the problems. Bitlocker has a clear</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>re: Summary of Bitlocker Discussions</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/rhalbheer/archive/2009/12/11/summary-of-bitlocker-discussions.aspx#3300306</link><pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:13:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3300306</guid><dc:creator>Alexander Trofimov</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;That's exactly the point. However there is at least one scenario, in which fresh-stolen notebook may be decrypted even if it's locked (not hibernated or turned of, of course) - if we have FireWire port enabled onboard - it gives access to memory =(&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3300306" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>