similar to: Problem starting Windows 11 EE

(apologies for the length - there are questions at the end...) I've been running Linux for 20 years, and done a lot of dual-boots. I know that's old-school now, but I run Linux 95% of the time yet don't want to lose a Windows system I've paid for - but I've never tried removing it from a system and reinstalling the same licenced copy inside a virtual machine. I bought a

I'm trying to make a drive that can boot with both UEFI and BIOS. I've built the drive successfully on my Linux machine, but can't get the drive to build with my Windows machine. The only step that's different right now, is that I use `extlinux --install /media/drive` to install with Linux, and `syslinux.exe --install d:` to install with Windows. In fact, I can prepare a drive with

Hey all, I resized a partition inside a KVM RAW file system disk image. When I start the Win7 virtual machine it does not report the new partition size. It shows the file system as 15GB instead of the 50GB size of the partition that it lives on. I gather from hours so reading the manual that I need to increase the NTFS file system size to fill the new larger partition where it lives. The

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:25:20PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:41:20AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >For BitLocker disks cryptsetup does not (yet? ever?) support reading > >UUIDs and this function will fail. This does not matter here so just > >ignore the error. > > > >Note there is no error message, cryptsetup simply returns

hi did anyone successfully implemented bitlocker key management in samba4 ad? searching web i can find one hit on this http://kidcartouche.blogspot.com/2013/03/bitlocker-drive-encryption-and-samba4.html i'm on 4.3.3. do i still need to import the bitlocker schema? any info on the subject is appreciated. thanks -- View this message in context:

Not sure what Bitlocker integration you are referring to. Saving bitlocker recovery keys does work for me with schema version 47. Regards, Joachim -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: samba <samba-bounces at lists.samba.org> Im Auftrag von Paul Littlefield via samba Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. M?rz 2024 18:14 An: samba at lists.samba.org Betreff: Re: [Samba] Raise Domain Level, Forest Level

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 09:25:15AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: >On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:06:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:25:20PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:41:20AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> >For BitLocker disks cryptsetup does not (yet? ever?) support reading >>>

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:06:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:25:20PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:41:20AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >For BitLocker disks cryptsetup does not (yet? ever?) support reading >> >UUIDs and this function will fail. This does not matter here so just >> >ignore

Hi, Jiong, Thanks for the patch! It is a great start to support 32bit register in BPF. In the past, I have studied a little bit to see whether 32bit register support may reduce the number of unnecessary shifts on x86_64 and improve the performance. Looking through a few bpf programs and it looks like the opportunity is not great, but still nice to have if we have this capability. As you

Hello; I use Bitlocker on my machines and I notice that when I am in my PXE Menu and I select "Boot to Local Hard Drive" it continues on then bitlockers. I am assuming that the syslinux is still in memory, bitlocker is being triggered because of the change. I need a solution to overcome this. I cannot remove bitlocker from the machines. Any and all help is appreciated. Matt

do you mean it cant be circumvented from the perspective of syslinux or TPM? Sadly firmware exploits are rampant. Core Security has good research on this as phrack... SMM can be gotten to by far too much. Tho if you are targeted by that skill level then going to ic3 might be good idea. -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Bannerman <ian at internals.io> Date:04/29/2014 2:43 PM

Any deviation from the expected boot process will prevent BitLocker from accessing the volume key in the TPM. One reason this behavior exists is to prevent malicious code from being loaded (such as via booting first to CD / USB / PXE, loading malware, and then continuing to boot to Windows). So what's happening here is the deviation from firmware -> PXE -> HDD is detected and the volume

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 04:33:53PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 05:02:57PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: >> Basically what I did was create a small disk, create one partition >> over the whole disk, then cryptsetup luksFormat the partition, open >> it and format it with a filesystem (without any LVM). That is one >> of the things you were

On 22/03/2024 09:20, Joachim Lindenberg via samba wrote: > Not sure what Bitlocker integration you are referring to. Saving > bitlocker recovery keys does work for me with schema version 47. > Regards, Joachim We have tried a few times to use our existing schema version 47 and it's coming up with this error:- https://www.itdroplets.com/bitlocker-error-0x80005000/ A screenshot is

All, If we can speculatively execute a load instruction, why isn’t it safe to hoist it out by promoting it to a scalar in LICM pass? There is a comment in LICM pass that if a load/store is conditional then it is not safe because it would break the LLVM concurrency model (See commit 73bfa4a). It has an IR test for checking this in test/Transforms/LICM/scalar-promote-memmodel.ll However, I have

Label is OS and I believe there are all booting MBR. Is there a way to clear the memory then continue loading ? or rebooting the machine from the menu. I have tried that reboot.c32 and cannot get it to reboot the machine. Matt -----Original Message----- From: Gene Cumm [mailto:gene.cumm at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:04 PM To: Taylor Jr, Matthew [U.S. Computer Corp] Cc:

This commit deprecates luks-open/luks-open-ro/luks-close for the more generic sounding names cryptsetup-open/cryptsetup-close, which also correspond directly to the cryptsetup commands. The optional cryptsetup-open readonly flag is used to replace the functionality of luks-open-ro. The optional cryptsetup-open crypttype parameter can be used to select the type (corresponding to cryptsetup open

This commit deprecates luks-open/luks-open-ro/luks-close for the more generic sounding names cryptsetup-open/cryptsetup-close, which also correspond directly to the cryptsetup commands. The optional cryptsetup-open readonly flag is used to replace the functionality of luks-open-ro. The optional cryptsetup-open crypttype parameter can be used to select the type (corresponding to cryptsetup open

On Monday, 7 September 2020 11:43:54 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > This commit deprecates luks-open/luks-open-ro/luks-close for the more > generic sounding names cryptsetup-open/cryptsetup-close, which also > correspond directly to the cryptsetup commands. > > The optional cryptsetup-open readonly flag is used to replace the > functionality of luks-open-ro. > > The

On 23/12/15 02:26, yabko wrote: > hi > > did anyone successfully implemented bitlocker key management in samba4 ad? > searching web i can find one hit on this > > http://kidcartouche.blogspot.com/2013/03/bitlocker-drive-encryption-and-samba4.html > > i'm on 4.3.3. do i still need to import the bitlocker schema? Never attempted this, but on link you provided is this: