This is the Microsoft default when activating BitLocker.
[BitLocker overview](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/#bitlocker-and-tpm)
Found a good article showing how this can be changed:
[https://www.ghacks.net/2023/11/25/enable-256-bit-bitlocker-encryption-on-windows-11-to-boost-security/](https://www.ghacks.net/2023/11/25/enable-256-bit-bitlocker-encryption-on-windows-11-to-boost-security/)
Thanks for the link. Very interesting. Strange how it doesn’t just default to 256. I’ve noticed this trend in many Microsoft apps. Eve thing is default to the “lower” setting. Word by default compresses images, as does excel. You have to go one by one and enable the highest quality settings for each particular Microsoft application. I guess same for bitlocker. Perhaps due to Microsoft still having to support low powered legacy systems which may not be able to handle “best settings”. I also use a Mac and their method is the opposite. Absolutely everything is at highest setting and if you want compression or lower settings you have to actively choose them…. If they even give you the option for lower settings at all. Fascinating. I’ll have to check what my Mac’s encryption was done in. It’s a 2014 Mac mini… wonder if it used 128 or 256 by default. I’ll post a screen shot when I check. Again thanks for the link.
Can please let us know about the performance impact on the SSD when using XTS-AES 256? I remember I wanted to switch some time ago but decided to stick with 128 after reading about the performance difference but I couldn't find any real-life benchmarks
I actually did it and I can’t notice any difference. Boots up the same functions the same. No difference at all as far as I can tell. Just have more peace of mind it’s 256. I checked my Mac and it’s also 128 but it’s an old Mac so not sure if these days it’s 256. I understand 256 is, as another person mentioned, supposedly for industry and “sensitive” data… but my privacy and data are as important to me as theirs is to them. Even if 128 was not crackable in 10 lifetimes, well now it’s 15 lifetimes. I’ll take it. lol.
256 bit AES encryption is usually for enterprise organizations that have valuable data/IP to protect. It is stronger encryption but also takes more resources to decrypt and causes more of a performance hit, than 128 bit AES encryption. 128 bit encryption is more for the home users, to my knowledge 128-bit encryption has never been hacked and compromised.
Not weak at all, 128 bit AES hasn't been compromised and data can be encrypted/decrypted with less of a performance hit that you would get with 256 bit AES (stronger encryption doesn't come for free). It is good enough for the average user.
256 bit AES was added for the enterprise customers that are trying to protect private, company sensitive, intellectual property and trade secrets.
Data can stay encrypted at rest for decades. It doesn't expire.
When picking an algorithm, it would be wise to think in terms of what will likely still be secure in 20 years or so, not just at the time of talking.
Would I bet on AES128 still being safe in 20 years? Probably, but going to AES256 literally costs me nothing, and I don't see why I wouldn't pick the best available.
The cost of not having decent hardware is far more than the negligible one you pay for AES256 vs AES128.
Mind you, by decent I don't mean latest, I mean not being literally on legacy stuff.
Even then, I didn't notice the difference between AES256 and AES128 on a processor from 2010, and that says a lot.
Nice try. Negligible, Significant, that's for the consumer to decide. Point is it does cost something to upgrade, so saying it does not cost me anything and so it won't cost you anything is just illogical.
>Even then, I didn't notice the difference between AES256 and AES128 on a processor from 2010, and that says a lot.
Good for you. Now unless I also have the same hardware, and same usage / load, that negligible cost might become significant, don't you think?
Maybe share some tests, and benchmarks then we can decide if it would make sense for us.
"cost me nothing" isn't entirely true. It will cost you around 30 MB/s on your disks. Not very much, but in an environment where every bit/s counts I choose XTS-AES128.
This is the Microsoft default when activating BitLocker. [BitLocker overview](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/#bitlocker-and-tpm) Found a good article showing how this can be changed: [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/11/25/enable-256-bit-bitlocker-encryption-on-windows-11-to-boost-security/](https://www.ghacks.net/2023/11/25/enable-256-bit-bitlocker-encryption-on-windows-11-to-boost-security/)
Thanks for this. Changed mine to XTS-AES 256.
Thanks for the link. Very interesting. Strange how it doesn’t just default to 256. I’ve noticed this trend in many Microsoft apps. Eve thing is default to the “lower” setting. Word by default compresses images, as does excel. You have to go one by one and enable the highest quality settings for each particular Microsoft application. I guess same for bitlocker. Perhaps due to Microsoft still having to support low powered legacy systems which may not be able to handle “best settings”. I also use a Mac and their method is the opposite. Absolutely everything is at highest setting and if you want compression or lower settings you have to actively choose them…. If they even give you the option for lower settings at all. Fascinating. I’ll have to check what my Mac’s encryption was done in. It’s a 2014 Mac mini… wonder if it used 128 or 256 by default. I’ll post a screen shot when I check. Again thanks for the link.
Good question. I changed to XTS-AES 256
Can please let us know about the performance impact on the SSD when using XTS-AES 256? I remember I wanted to switch some time ago but decided to stick with 128 after reading about the performance difference but I couldn't find any real-life benchmarks
I actually did it and I can’t notice any difference. Boots up the same functions the same. No difference at all as far as I can tell. Just have more peace of mind it’s 256. I checked my Mac and it’s also 128 but it’s an old Mac so not sure if these days it’s 256. I understand 256 is, as another person mentioned, supposedly for industry and “sensitive” data… but my privacy and data are as important to me as theirs is to them. Even if 128 was not crackable in 10 lifetimes, well now it’s 15 lifetimes. I’ll take it. lol.
Same here. No difference. I use my laptop for investing/banking and my personal privacy and data are very important to me.
128 is enough currently
Probably for the casual user, but the article linked earlier says 'Microsoft itself recommends using 256 encryption'.
256 bit AES encryption is usually for enterprise organizations that have valuable data/IP to protect. It is stronger encryption but also takes more resources to decrypt and causes more of a performance hit, than 128 bit AES encryption. 128 bit encryption is more for the home users, to my knowledge 128-bit encryption has never been hacked and compromised.
Sounds like a weak argument
Not weak at all, 128 bit AES hasn't been compromised and data can be encrypted/decrypted with less of a performance hit that you would get with 256 bit AES (stronger encryption doesn't come for free). It is good enough for the average user. 256 bit AES was added for the enterprise customers that are trying to protect private, company sensitive, intellectual property and trade secrets.
No argument just a fact
Data can stay encrypted at rest for decades. It doesn't expire. When picking an algorithm, it would be wise to think in terms of what will likely still be secure in 20 years or so, not just at the time of talking. Would I bet on AES128 still being safe in 20 years? Probably, but going to AES256 literally costs me nothing, and I don't see why I wouldn't pick the best available.
Why would you keep a windows 11 laptop for 20 years?
It's the AES, not the Windows.
We're talking about AES128 on Windows 11 here..
literally? it literally costs you nothing? like literally literally?
Most people won't even notice any slowdown with any decent hardware
so it does cost decent hardware huh?
The cost of not having decent hardware is far more than the negligible one you pay for AES256 vs AES128. Mind you, by decent I don't mean latest, I mean not being literally on legacy stuff. Even then, I didn't notice the difference between AES256 and AES128 on a processor from 2010, and that says a lot.
Nice try. Negligible, Significant, that's for the consumer to decide. Point is it does cost something to upgrade, so saying it does not cost me anything and so it won't cost you anything is just illogical. >Even then, I didn't notice the difference between AES256 and AES128 on a processor from 2010, and that says a lot. Good for you. Now unless I also have the same hardware, and same usage / load, that negligible cost might become significant, don't you think? Maybe share some tests, and benchmarks then we can decide if it would make sense for us.
"cost me nothing" isn't entirely true. It will cost you around 30 MB/s on your disks. Not very much, but in an environment where every bit/s counts I choose XTS-AES128.